ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[dow3tf]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [dow3tf] TF3 - Best Practices Recommendations

  • To: Brian Darville <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] TF3 - Best Practices Recommendations
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:48:09 -0400
  • Cc: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, roseman@xxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <s08932af.073@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s08932af.073@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5+ (Windows/20040215)

On 4/23/2004 3:13 PM Brian Darville noted that:

Second, Items 2, 4 and 13, plainly are within the scope of Task Force 3.  Item 10 might be, but I confess I am not sufficiently familiar with it and look forward to the briefing later this week.  I included it because it is referenced in one of the constituency statements (not the IPC's, incidentally).


re: item #2 - The task force is to consider the issue of data accuracy, not the issue of how ICANN gathers data for interal consumption.


re: item #3 & #4 - the manner in which policy is implemented is an operational issue outside of the scope of the GNSO. The characteristics of specific implementation issues are a matter for contracting policies to determine based on the policy adopted through the consensus policy process.

re: item #4 - there were no presentations made in Rome that manual review and verification of data submitted to gTLD registrars could be performed in a cost effective manner.

Re: item #10 - specific protocol recommendations are beyond the capacity of this task force and are also matters for ICANN and its contracted parties to determine how to best implement.

> As for your proposal about removing the IPC recommendations, that does not make any sense.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. My specific request is to set aside the entire document until it is properly cited and the scope and accuracy issues are dealt with.

I am happy to include the registrar constituency recommendations,
> but it is hard to articulate them in concrete terms that are
> specific enough to guide future action.

Policy recommendations are in scope for the GNSO, but implementation specifications are not. The difference is slight but important. The registrar constituency submission was drafted to accomodate this, but if the implications are unclear, I would be please to address specific questions and comments from the membership of the task force.

Regards,


--


-rwr








"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>