<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Bruce,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>This is looking pretty good. Here are my comments and suggestions:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Under term of reference (2), regarding the lead in sentence:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> When approving a change ICANN should
determine whether:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I suggest that it be changed to:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>When approving a change ICANN must determine whether:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Following that in item (c) I would suggest that the phrase "may
require" in the third sentence be replaced with "should include"
as follows:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>a proposed change in the functional and performance
specifications of a “Registry Service” should include impartial
external advice from one or more technical experts.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I would also suggest that the fifth sentence of (c) be less ambiguous
about its goal and be revised to read:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>The terms “operational stability”,
“reliability”, “security” and “global
interoperability” should be more clearly defined in the context of domain
name registries, with examples of changes that could cause problems.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Under term of reference (3) item (a) the second sentence should be
revised to read:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>This should include legal and/or technical advice in
the case of determining whether a service is a “Registry Service.”</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Likewise in item (b) the second sentence should be revised to read:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>This should include impartial technical expert advice
or competition expert advice.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I realize there is a desire for a fast track process. However, I
believe that the decision to fast track a request without at least a cursory
impartial review will open the process to many disputes, appeals, and potential
litigation.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Regarding the appeal timelines in term of reference (4):</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I do not fully agree with the suggested shorter appeal timeline. If the
appeal window is too short it may result in affected parties more often opting
for legal action instead of using the appeal process.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Also, issues raised in the appeal may not be easily studied or fully
considered in 14 days. ICANN should have enough time for any necessary third
party consultation as needed.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I would recommend that the shorter timeline be stricken from the
document.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Tim</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin<br>
Sent: </span></font>Friday, January 16, 2004 2:32 AM<br>
To: registrars@dnso.org<br>
Subject: [registrars] DRAFT2: registrars constituency statement on approval
process for changes in gtld services (Registry Services)</p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Hello All,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I have updated the DRAFT statement following input received since
Friday</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>9 Jan 2004</span></font>.</p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>This is the second draft.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I have added some text about unsponsored tlds as requested by Werner.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I have added some additional text relating to competition issues.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>I require 5 endorsements to be able to put this statement to a vote.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>If you support the paper please respond to the list. If you don't</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>support it, please let me know and I will attempt to accommodate.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Regards,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Bruce Tonkin</span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>