RE: [nc-transfer] Registrar Constituency Transfer Proposal

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Thanks, Ross. I'll finalize my suggested update to the working agenda of the
group hopefully tonight. And will post the draft questionnaire. My secretary
has queried for a call next week. Please respond to  her by noon today, or
after that to me, since she is out for several days...beginning today at
3:00 p.m.

I know we've been rather quiet for a few weeks, but we have some new work
priorities to move ahead with... 

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:30 AM
To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
Cc: rc-excom@ar.com
Subject: [nc-transfer] Registrar Constituency Transfer Proposal


Fellow TF Members,

The work of this task force thsus far has focused on points number 1 through
5 in the Final Terms of Reference document tabled by our chairperson  on
December 4, 2001
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00014.doc). I feel that
we have made a tremendous amount of progress on these fronts, specifically
as it relates to a wider understanding of the role of "Apparent Authority",
EPP Auth codes and other peripheral issues.

At this point I would like to propose that we turn our attention to point #6
"...develop recommendations to the Names Council for guidance to the ICANN
Board of Directors concerning any amendment of existing contractual
agreements, where such changes are needed to correct any identified clauses
which require policy guidance or clarification , should the Names Council
determine that consensus support for said recommendations exists, as
specified in section 2.d of the ICANN bylaws." pending the receipt of the
feedback required by point #4.

I firmly believe that there will be no surprises from the registrants that
would derail any efforts put towards achieving the goals of point #6. At
worst, I expect that we may have to undertake minor modifcations pending
receipt of this feedback, but that this will largely be mitigated by the
current user groups that are participating in this task force. The needs of
the various user stakeholders are largely complementary as it relates to
transfers. Of course, the Registrar Constituency cannot pretend to speak on
behalf of this community, we do have excellent exposure to their interests,
needs and challenges through our economic dealings with them. In the year
that I have been working this issue, I have not seen any dissonance with the
goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants.

Through 2001, the DNSO Registrar Constituency worked through the details of
Inter-Registrar Transfers and concluded by way of formal consensus that the
proposal found at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01211.html was a
reasonable statement of best practices.

"<snip>...

Resolved, the Registrar Constituency adopt the attached proposal
(entitled Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers: Principles and Processes
for Gaining and Losing Registrars version 1, revision 0, draft 8) as a
voluntary code of practice governing Inter-registrar Transfer of SLD
Sponsorship and urge all ICANN Accredited Registrars to implement these
practices and processes in their registrar operations.

Resolved, the Registrar Constituency may modify or add to this proposal
at anytime that the Constituency deems that a determinative consensus
concerning the modifying or additive provision, or provisions, has been
reached by the Constituency and that the modifying or additive provision, or
provisions should be incorporated into a revised version of this proposal."

To this end, the Registrar Constituency requests that this Task Force
recommends to the Names Council that;

- The Names Council forward a recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors
that modifies the relevant sections [1] of the Registry Agreements that
state ;

"In those instances when the Registrar of record denies the requested change
of Registrar, the Registrar of record shall notify the prospective gaining
Registrar that the request was denied and the reason for the denial.
Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
include, but are not limited to:

1) Situations described in the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
3) Dispute over the identity of the Registered Name holder
4) Request to transfer sponsorship occurs within the first 60 days after the
initial registration with the Registrar

In all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice
regarding the "transfer" request within five (5) days. Failure to respond
will result in a default "approval" of the "transfer."

To read;

"In those instances when the Registrar of record denies the requested change
of Registrar, the Registrar of record shall notify the prospective gaining
Registrar that the request was denied and the reason for the denial.
Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied
are limited to:

1) Situations described in the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
3) Dispute over the identity of the Registered Name holder
4) Request to transfer sponsorship occurs within the first 60 days after the
initial registration with the Registrar
5) Circumstances described in the Registrar Transfer Statement of Best
Practices document.

In all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice
regarding the "transfer" request within five (5) days. Failure to respond
will result in a default "approval" of the "transfer."

The Registrar Constituency strongly believes that modifying these terms to
include the Best Practices Statement adopted by the constituency will not
only balance the needs of Registrants and Registries, but also provide a
comprehensive description of process by which Registrars can conduct their
operations to the benefit of consumers and users.

Unless there is an alternate proposal that provides the depth, roots in
consensus and clarity that the Registrar position has, it is our preference
that we move to closure and recommendation back to the NC before April 30th,
2002.

As always, I am available for questions or comments, however around these
points it would be my preference that we conduct as much of the discussion
as is possible on list in order to ensure maximum transparency and
participation as it relates to this particular portion of the process.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Innovation & Research
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
f. 416.531.5584

[1] Typically Exhibit B to Appendix F of the ICANN-Registry Agreement. (The
relevant portion of the ".com" Registry Agreement can be found at
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appf-com-16apr01
.htm as an example)