<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [dow3tf] Registrar Constituency Input re: Best Practices
- To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [dow3tf] Registrar Constituency Input re: Best Practices
- From: sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:27:40 -0400
- Cc: 3DOW3tf <dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I submitted extensive comments as well in an attempt to form a compromise
on the paper. We were all unavailable last week, so we need to reschedule
a call to walk through everyone's concerns.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Ross Wm. Rader"
<ross@xxxxxxxxxx> To: 3DOW3tf <dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
owner-dow3tf@gnso Subject: [dow3tf] Registrar Constituency Input re: Best Practices
.icann.org
05/18/2004 09:03
AM
Please respond to
ross
On May 4 I submitted substantial comments regarding the then current
draft of the best practices
(http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00167.html). It
is now May 17 and I have not heard nor seen any discussion of this
submission or any comments on it from any other member of this task
force. For the record, I reiterate them here and request that we discuss
them during our regularly scheduled call tomorrow.
Section 1 - This clause forces substantial and inappropriate liability
on registrars. Inclusion of the language included in the redline I
submitted on May 4 is not acceptable to the Registrar Constituency.
Striking this language will be key if the Task Force wishes to have
Registrar Constituency's support of their recommendations.
Section 2 - These recommendations are wholly out of scope for both this
task force and the GNSO.
Section 3 - This recommendation inappropriately limits the scope of
consideration by the GNSO. This is unlikely to supported by the GNSO
Council and should be replaced by the original text that was proposed by
the Registrar Constituency.
Section 4 - Specific recommendations regarding the inclusion of various
whois data elements is out of scope for this task force. For the third
time I reiterate my objection to their inclusion in this document.
Section 5 - See my comments on Section 1.
Section 6 - Again this requirement is out of scope for the GNSO and if
implemented with negatively impact competition by limiting the manner by
which registrars currently offer these services on a free market basis.
Section 7 - This section is redundant and simply restates the
requirements of the policy development process.
I am at somewhat of a loss as to how we should proceed with this. No
commentary on these very important issues over the past two weeks
indicates to me that either a) this task force is dealing with a
foregone conclusion that would be better dealt with at a council level
or b) we no longer have the committment of the task force membership
required to fulfill our obligations to the Council. I sincerely hope
that neither is the case. Making solid progress on these points during
tomorrow's call would definitely put me in a more positive frame of mind
regarding our chance of success as a Task Force.
--
-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
>>>
|