[ga] Transfers TF Final Report

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Ross,

Marilyn made the comment on the Transfers Discussion list that "There is a 
small group of registrars, who appear to be supported by some in the registry 
constituency -- who believe that it should be possible to make substantive 
changes during the implementation work to take into account other views, or 
new inputs, etc."   

Having taken note of the vote within the registrar constituency that 
indicates that 43% of the eligible voting members do not support "all" of the 
principles enumerated by the Transfers Task Force, I am concerned by (1) the 
characterization of these parties as a "small group of registrars" -- 43% is 
no longer a "small group",  (2) the obvious attempt to route around certain 
unacceptable recommendations by recourse to the implementation process, and 
(3) the need to determine which recommendations are deemed objectionable by 
these parties.

With regard to (1), I would appreciate knowing who these dissenting 
registrars are, and, if possible, what percent of total registrations they 
represent.

With regard to (2), rather than creating a situation in which a large block 
of registrars will attempt to game the policy process by lobbying ICANN staff 
to allow for favorable "modifications" in the implementation phase, wouldn't 
it make more sense to admit that a consensus on the recommendations within 
your constituency still doesn't exist, and to continue working until a 
reasonable degree of compromise is reached between the two camps?  As far as 
I can determine, there seems to be a greater amount of support for the 
transfer "Principles" cited by Chuck Gomes than there is for the transfer 
"Recommendations" as put forth by the Task Force... perhaps that is a 
foundation upon which a concluding effort can be built.

With regard to (3), the average reader could well conclude that the TF 
recommendations are more than somewhat lopsided in favor of the gaining 
registrar... perhaps this is the major stumbling block that is preventing the 
emergence of consensus on the recommendations.  It could well be the case 
that those registrars that have the most to lose simply don't trust the 
"presumption" that in all cases the Gaining Registrar will apply due 
diligence to the authentication process, and that they consequently don't 
wish to find themselves facing the financial and human resource burden 
associated with determining whether the registrant "intent" to transfer was 
legitimate.  You have already considered a dispute resolution process... just 
an idea, but has anyone looked at the possibility of a neutral third party 
authentication process?   The lack of trust between gaining and losing 
registrars might not be an issue if a trusted third party were involved at 
this critical stage.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html