[nc-transfer] Draft Resolution

[Grant Forsyth <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>]

Fellow task force members
On the Transfers Task Force call this week, the chair tasked me with
drafting a resolution which would:
a) be put to the TF for their consideration and agreement such that the
resolution could then be forwarded to the Names Council for their
consideration and for public consultation; and
b) form the basis for what would develop into the final resolution.

The Chair suggested that I use the approach taken with the development of a
draft then final resolution on the matter of the Task Force's policy
recommendation on the Wait List Service.
I have reviewed the work I did on that matter and find that it is not a
particularly good model with respect to the matter of Transfers because with
transfers, the TF has developed a comprehensive document which embodies (or
will embody) the TF's recommendations.
Hence, I provide the following draft resolution for consideration by the TF,
comment via email prior to our next scheduled call on 3/10 and adoption (as
amended) on the 3/10 call.

DRAFT RESOLUTION
Whereas in early 2001 complaints were raised regarding denials of requested
transfers which prompted Verisign Registrar on 25 May 2001 to impose its own
approach to the problem, which then prompted ICANN President, Stuart Lynn,
on 27 August 2001 to write to the Registrar Constituency recommending that a
new policy be created, which resulted in the Names Council on a conference
call of 11 October 2001 to form the Transfers Task Force with terms of
reference as recorded at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00000.doc

Whereas the Transfers Task Force had been deflected from its primary task of
reviewing the issues surrounding Transfers and developing policy to address
Transfers by a request to consider the issues surrounding Verisign's request
to ICANN to launch a Wait List Service (WLS) (transactions on that effort
are recorded on various lists found at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/nctaskforcesindex.html)

Whereas having dealt to the issue of WLS, the Transfers Task Force resumed
its work of considering the issues surrounding Transfers and drafted a set
of policy recommendations, this effort being recorded at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/mail9.html

Whereas the Names Council Transfers Task Force presents a comprehensive set
of policy and process recommendations in the form of the attached report,
"Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfer: Principles and Process for Gaining
and Losing Registrars" (IRDX report) version 2 revision 0 (2.0), the latest
copy of which is can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ and is attached [Ross to
attach latest report]

[Whereas some members of the Names Council wish to have recorded alternative
wording to the final IRDX report, those Minority Reports can be found at:
<web address included> ](Note: this part of the resolution would only make
its way through to the final resolution should there be a Minority
Report(s))

The Names Council resolves, on the recommendation of the Transfers Task
Force, that:
1. The ICANN Board accept the policy and process recommendations contained
within the IRDX report <version x.y (final version number to be inserted
here)>; 
2. The ICANN Board directs the ICANN staff to develop suitable contract
drafting to amend the Registry-Registrar contracts to give effect to the
recommendations in the IRDX report;
3. monitoring?
4. enforcement?
5. review?

NOTE
Task Force members
1. You will note that I have provided 3 aspects to the resolution with ? - I
think we need some discussion on these matters to conclude whether they need
to be represented specifically within the resolution or whether they can be
left to be dealt to, arising from the report itself.

2. Please review the whole wording of the draft resolution and forward any
suggested changes to the whole TF - including any wording you might have for
items 3-5 of the actual resolution part.

3. You will note that the "guts" of the resolution is the IRDX report. What
needs to be achieved at our next call, I think, is agreement that the
current draft of the IRDX report represents the TF's consensus view. I have
not heard any dissenting views expressed about the report of late, so
presume that this will be a reasonably perfunctory process. 
IF THERE IS ANY TASK FORCE MEMBER WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH SOME
ASPECT/WORDING OF THE CURRENT IRDX REPORT, WOULD THEY PLEASE PROVIDE
ALTERNATE WORDING BY EMAIL BEFORE THE NEXT CALL which I suggest we would
just insert within the report [within], noting its origin, so that when the
report goes up to the NC and out for comment, all views are correctly
represented.

Hope this is useful and gets us closer to closing off this important matter
Regards



Grant Forsyth
Business Constituency Rep 
Transfers Task Force