ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council

  • To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:13:41 -0500
  • Cc: <stahura@xxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paul should speak for himself, but his message simply said he agreed
that ICANN should keep its whole mission in mind when making a
recommendation. He did NOT say he did not support this draft, he did not
propose any specific wording changes, nor did he endorse your proposed
wording changes. 

Since your concern seems to be competition, I would call your attention
to the statement in the first paragraph: 

"the Task Force recognizes that it is desirable to maintain, insofar as
it is possible, the uniformity of gTLD registrar and registry contracts
to create a level playing field for competition and maintain
predictability for all users of the domain name system."

Let me remind you, again, that this is a DRAFT that will be sent to the
constituencies for comment. This is not a final document. During the
comment period, the registrars, yourself included, can come to an
agreement about what their position is. 


>>> Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/27/2004 7:44:11 AM >>>
If you actually read my posts, as well as Paul Stahura's, this
rewording does NOT appear to have the support of one of the elected RC
reps to this task force nor the alternative RC rep to this task force.
My suggested change is something to the effect:
The General Counsel shall consider the entirety of its mission and core
values in any such recommendation.

I suspect that anyone who cannot accept that change may have another
agenda not completely on the table. I would request that our elected
reps speak up here so that at the very least this difference of opinion
on this issue is included as a minority view in the report to the GNSO


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [dow1-2tf] Vote for 2 Drafts to send to GNSO Council
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, November 26, 2004 7:34 pm
To: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Cc: "'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'"

Ok,  I have reworded the contentious section in the last few e-mails
Milton's suggested language of "in order to preserve the operational
stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the
Internet's unique identifier systems."

With that said, unless I get a strong objection by Monday at 11:59:59
Eastern US time, I will forward the 2 drafts to the GNSO Council.  
reason I am doing it this way is that in following the e-mail chain, I
believe with the wording change above, it has support from the
Registries, Noncommercial, IPC and Business Users constituency.  In
addition, I believe the ISPs (Tony and Maggie) expressed approval on
last call.

Here are the 2 drafts.  There have been no changes to the Whois

<<Whois TF Conflict (clean).doc>>  <<WHOIS NOTIFICATION.doc>> 
As stated in the prior e-mails, we will ask the Council to formally
constituency statements on these reports (20 day period), and then
those statements in a Preliminary Report which will then go out for


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Director, Law & Policy 
NeuStar, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center 
46000 Center Oak Plaza 
Building X 
Sterling, VA 20166 
p: (571) 434-5772 
f: (571) 434-5735 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message. 

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