ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[dow3tf]


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

Re: [dow3tf] Further Revised Best Practices

  • To: Brian Darville <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] Further Revised Best Practices
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 09:53:55 -0400
  • Cc: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, roseman@xxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <s0b245c3.048@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s0b245c3.048@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (Windows/20040113)

On 5/24/2004 6:57 PM Brian Darville noted that:

I have revised the best practices further in light of Sarah's last comments, a discussion with Bruce Tonkin, Ross's comments, etc.

Bruce suggested that we needed to make specific recommendations rather than general statements.  At least two of the new recommended practices are ones suggested by Bruce which he thought may be acceptable to registrars.  Of course, we are not bound to adopt them.

Please review this revised draft and let's discuss on Wednesday morning.

Three comments;

First, I am not sure what the goals of this document are. They are not clearly stated and outside of our charter, we have not had much, if any, discussion on this point. I think the task force should have a discussion regarding our mutual goals and then re-draft this document in this light. As it stands right now, we have a hodge-podge of potentially conflicting recommendations that do not entirely stand together as a comprehensive recommendation. For instance, the requirements of a proactive verification process are entirely different from the requirements of a reactive verification process. If one of the goals of the task force is to ensure one of proactive or reactive verification to support accuracy, then we should focus on one of those two areas, not both.

Second, we should restate this document in terms of best practices for specific actors.

i.e. Best Practices for Registrants, Best Practices for Registrars, Best Practices for Registries, etc.

As it currently stands, the best practices includes many "possible recommendations that ICANN might wish to consider" - which are clearly not specification recommendations of specific practices for specific actors. Breaking the document out in this manner will, I believe, lead to much crisper and useful recommendations beyond what we have now.

Lastly, I would like to request that we consider whether or not we need additional time to craft these recommendations. We have not made much progress to date, but I do see light at the end of the tunnel. I would hope that we try to let our current discussions play out - as Marilyn likes to say, "There's a pony in there somewhere..."



--

                       -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 >>>