[nc-transfer] NC Transfer TF minutes Dec.21, 2001

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

NC TRANSFER TASK FORCE
Teleconference Minutes
December 21, 2001
Attendees:

 ISP - Mark McFadden <mcf@uwm.edu
 BC - Marilyn Cade mcade@att.com>
 Registrars - Ross Wm. Rader ross@tucows.com>
 gTLD - Sloan Gaon  sgaon@register.com>
 gTLD - Christine Russo crusso@verisign.com>
 NonCom - Milton Mueller  mueller@syracuse.edu>
 DNSO Sec - Glen de Saint Géry  gcore@wanadoo.fr>
 IPC -David Safran dsafran@nixonpeabody.com

Excused:
Danny Younger, GA
Nick Wood, IPC
Grant Forsyth, BC
Elisabeth




Marilyn Cade, Interim chair, welcomed all the participants and explained
that there would be no observers on the call since the primary purpose of
this call was to develop the administrative agreements related to
establishing the work program of the TR TF.
She noted that the one of the Tasks of the TF would be to determine the
criteria for "open" meetings/conference calls where observers would be
invited.

An informal agenda was reviewed:
ˇ  Finalizing participation in the TF itself.
ˇ Status on  comments on ToR (terms of reference)/final agreement to ToR
ˇ Task Force recommendations on use of open meetings which support observers
to TF activities and
ˇ Reaching agreement on an effective process for input from registrants
ˇ Agreement to move ahead with scheduling call with Louis Touton on
"apparent authority" discussion
ˇ Discussion of timelines for work of TF, including interim NC reports,
interim report from TF, and proposed work effort for Ghana ICANN meeting.

General Discussion/Comments:

Mark McFadden, ISPCP, asked that an effort be made to provide briefing
materials sufficiently ahead of time to accommodate all participants. This
was noted, and will be a priority in any further meetings/calls.

Status on representation from constituencies/GA:
After considerable discussion and input from various constituencies,  the
Interim chair recommended a modification  to the original NC recommendation
in order to accommodate up to two members per constituency, but limited to
one vote.

GA:  The GA has held an election to decide who its representative will be.
Now that an election has been held, this will be updated upon advice of the
GA chair.

Non Commercial:  Milton Milton;   Vany [add last name]
ccTLD:  Rick Shera;   Peter deBlanc.  .
BC: Marilyn  Cade;  Grant Forsyth
Registrars:  Ross Rader
gTLDs: Christine Russo; Sloan Gaon
IP constituency :  Nick Wood;  David Safran
ISPs: Mark McFadden;  Tony Holmes
GA:  Awaiting confirmation, but based on public announcement of election:
Dan Steinberg

Geographical diversity has been met with Rick and Grant from the Asian
Pacific region; Vany from Latin America; and Nick and Tony from
Europe.

Terms of Reference:
 Several of the Constituencies have commented on the ToR.  These are now
considered closed. Cade advised the group that if, in the future, changes
are needed/sought, these changes should be made as a recommendation to the
full TF; the TF would then consider modifications to the ToR.    [Note from
the Chair: this is an effort to offer a process for change.]

Meetings of TF and Meetings open to observers:
Cade described the intent of the TF to host two kinds of meetings:  1)
administrative 2) "open meetings" where each TF representative is
responsible for who participates from their group.

Milton Mueller noted that "closed meetings" are a problem and that if people
are willing to participate, that he recommends they be accommodated.  The
chair noted that a very few organizational/administrative meetings would be
the "norm" and that given the ToR, most meetings of any substantive nature
should be open to observers/guests.

After some discussion among the participants, the outcome was to follow the
chair's recommendation for now, with two kinds of meetings, but to ensure
broad participation in the open substantive meetings.




Discussion about Input from Registrants into changes/discussions about the
transfer process:
The group then discussed the process of ensuring that registrants are able
to participate and comment on the transfer process.  Considerable discussion
took place with broad agreement seeming to be reflected about the need to
have a process which included, in an effective and organized manner, input
from a broad range of registrants.

As adjunct and important clarification, and in order to ensure that there is
no misunderstanding on the part of registrants,  a recommendation developed
that the TF would not be an "appeals court" or ombudsman for individual
complaints.   The consensus of the group was to make this point clear so
that registrants aren't disappointed and that their efforts at
complaints/resolution aren't held up because they expect redress through
this policy process.

Mark McFadden drafted a statement to guide this particular area:
"The Transfers Task Force is investigating the issues and existing
policies governing the transfers of domain names between registrars.  As
a part of that activity the task force will solicit input from
registrants that may include the impact of transfers, problems during
the transfer process and concerns about the ICANN policies that govern
transfers.  This Task Force is working on understanding the policy
issues surrounding transfers.  The Task Force is also working on
developing recommendations for implement able policy changes that address
any problems identified during the process.  Under no circumstance is the
Task Force
acting as an intervener or advocate in any ongoing transfer disputes.
The Task Force is a policy analysis body and not a group that can act as
an advocate for any individual or organization."

[Interim Chair:   Comments welcomed on this statement but the intent of the
group was clearly to support this].

It was proposed that when there were open meetings that each constituency
would be charged with outreach  to it's own members.   In future there would
be material for the meeting circulated and it would be the task of the TF
members to distribute it to observers whom they reach out to/include.

ˇ Ensuring participation/input from registrants: All agreed that a priority
of seeking input from registrants is important, and must address the variety
of ways which registrants use to register names: individual registers for
themselves; individual registers through ISP, other party; business
registers directly, or through agent/attorney, or through ISP or via
relationship as reseller to Registrar; and any other mechanism available.


Various ways of doing this were discussed:
ˇ Establish a model  which allowed for people who were interested, but not
part of an constituency or group to self identify, and participate/provide
input.
ˇ Establish process to identify interested parties to participate in
conference calls  with TF representatives who would utilize a standard set
of questions;
- Use a short, standard questionnaire to be drawn up where
individuals/organizations/companies would be able to respond to their
experience as registrants.

Discussion:

 After considerable discussion, the value of an anecdotal process was agreed
to as preferable.  There was discussion of a possible survey approach.  Cade
described the challenges faced by the WHOIS committee related to anecdotal
input but suggested that this process could be made more manageable.

The group discussed timing of survey data instruments, versus gathering
examples and agreed that illustrative examples were more useful to the
Transfer TF.

Since this is an involved procedure,  a call could be launched in each
constituency/GA on how best to get a relevant call for comments from that
constituency/GA; this could begin with informal discussion now on the part
of the Transfer TF members.

The TF members agreed that gathering information about concerns and
experiences and requesting information and participation via the
constituencies and the GA was critical.  A special point was made about the
need to enable the GA participation for those who otherwise are not
represented.   It was agreed that this would be an illustrative
informational approach/not a statistical approach.

Concepts agreed to:   Establish a process for enabling input:
- sub-teams to gather information from affected entities, focused from
constituencies/GA
- representatives from interested parties  to participate in conference call
data gathering sessions
- consideration of e-mail responses to a brief survey where individuals
respond to a anonymous, and statistical survey approach;
- the group agreed that anecdotal examples were of more use

Role of the GA:   The TF discussed asking the GA, and others, to identify
participants in conference calls and any survey approaches. The group
discussed whether identification of registrars in the data gathering is a
useful data point, or whether data gathering of incidents would be useful in
an anonymous environment.

Omitting the Registrar identification could lead to inaccurate data, while
identification
could be a problem when a policy issue is concerned that would go to the
Names Council and then to the Board.   The group agreed that responses must
have a degree of confidentiality, but that the ability to identify repeated
concerns is critical.

7. In Summary:
- Marilyn Cade, Interim Chair, noted that once the GA rep and other reps are
finalized, a call for an election for the chair would take place.
- The anecdotal approach to data gathering would be used.
- Marilyn Cade, Interim Chair, proposed to invite Louis Touton to
participate on a call about  "apparent authority".
-We will maintain the Transfer TR list but will set up a separate list which
could be available for those interested in participating in the data
gathering effort of the TF. [composition yet to be determined by the TF].
And, if the TF decides to undertake a call for public comment - that would
be done via a  separate list.
- The group agreed to discuss whether a separate formal working group would
be established. While one member strongly supported, others were less
committed. The Interim chair suggested that this be left open and taken up
after the process for taking input from registrants was further
refined/developed.


The meeting closed at 9.30 EDT (Washington) 15.30 CET (Paris)


DNSO Secretariat