[registrars] Transfers Task Force: Request for Comments

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Registrars,

First, thanks to those of you that you have provided me with your input
pursuant to yesterday's update. Input from the constituency on these various
questions is of paramount importance. The time taken out of your busy days
to review and consult is sincerely appreciated.

Second, the chair of the Transfers Task Force has posted drafts of the TF
Terms of Reference, a statement of TF composition as well as a proposed work
schedule. The original documents and solicitation can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00047.html

For those of you that prefer a less hostile document format, I have attached
text conversions of the originals to this email - please however be sure to
visit the link above to ensure and read the supporting comments in order to
ensure the proper context.

The timeline for commentary on this document set is relatively short - if
you have any questions, comments, criticisms etc., that I should be taking
to the task force, please try and drop me a line prior to Monday. I
understand that the US holiday schedule may make this difficult for some, so
I will attempt to keep the comment period open as long as possible on Monday
to ensure maximum participation.

As always, if there are any questions, please do not hesitate to drop me a
line - my full contact information is below. And to those of you that have
them, have a safe and happy Thanksgiving - don't forget the important things
in life.

Thanks,

Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Innovation & Research
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.535.0123 x 1335
f. 416.531.5584

DRAFT 

FOR COMMENT BY DESIGNATED REPS TO THE NC TASK FORCE ON TRANSFERS

Background:

In early spring, 2001, complaints began to surface from a number of registrars regarding denials of requested transfers, including substantial delays and confusing responses.   May 25, 2001, Verisign Registrar contacted the other registrars that it was taking specific actions to address this situation and announced a policy which seems to be in conflict with the default policy outlined in Appendix B of the Verisign-Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  On July 16, 2001, Verisign Corporate advised Stuart Lynn, President, ICANN, that they had adopted a default non acknowledgement (n'ack) policy in order to protect their customers from unauthorized transfers.  On August 27, 2001, Stuart Lynn replied to the Registrar Constituency recommending that a new policy be created to deal with the problem. Louie Touton, General Counsel and Secretary, ICANN, replied to the Verisign request , indicating that registars may not deny transfer requests that the gaining registrar has verified  simply because the losing registrar has not verified it.  (documentation from the Registrars provide additional details, but are not included in this background summary for brifity purposes.)  

During July, August, and September, the Registrar Constituency has been involved in developing and approving within the constituency a protocol for handling of transfers, with the intent that this protocol would be followed by all accredited registrars, thus giving certainty to the registrant of what happens when they change registrars, or when their designated agent changes registrars on their behalf. . After extensive drafting and discussion, a final document with extensive guidance was produced, and put to a vote by the Registrars.  

The outcome of the vote:
Of 40 registars voting, 3 against, one abstention, and 36 supporting.  The Registrar Constituency provides further detail on this topic at www.icann-registrars.org.  The vote held supported the default "ack" policy, which essentially means that the losing registry transfers the registrant, upon receipt of the request from the "gaining" registry. 

However, in spite of the vote, there is not complete acceptance within the Registrars Constiutency and at least one, and maybe more registrars are not yet in compliance with the recommended procedure, as defined in the registrar protocol for transfers.

When this situation came to the attention of some of the other constituencies prior to Montevideo, it became apparent that the other constituencies were not informed of the situation, nor the proposed solution under development by the Registrars.  A briefing was held by three constituencies (IPC, ISPCP, BC) with the Registrars Constituency representative.  It became apparent that the other constituencies believe that their members (users/registrants) are being affected by this situation and some questioned whether there are policy as well as contract issues.   It is also clear that while the protocol is a first step, additional areas of work are needed, and this is acknowledged by the Registrar Constituency. 

The issue was brought to the attention of the Names Council on an ensuing conference call (October 11, 2001)  and a "fast track Task Force created;  Marilyn Cade as interim chair. 


Status:
Each constituency has been asked to nominate their designated rep.  Since no constituencies have provided names, all members of the NC and Danny Younger, as Chair of the  GA, were added to the NC-Transfer listserv by Marilyn Cade, as interim chair of the TF.  A second call for nominations, to be made by November 7, has been posted by Philip Sheppard, NC chair.  Nominations should be sent to Marilyn Cade at mcade@att.com, with a cc to DNSO Secretariat@dnso.org.   The listserv for the Task Force is at NC-transfer@dnso.org.

It has become very clear that an informational basis is required to support the NC reps, both of the Task Force, and the full NC. A teleconference briefing on the issue is scheduled for November 6,  9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. EST/U.S. (Secretariat to provide other times for different time zones.)

The agenda for the call is posted separately. 

DRAFT

Terms of Reference for Task Force on Transfers

The purpose of the Task Force on Transfers is to:

--develop broad understanding across the NC of the issues underlying the disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars  
--ensure  understanding of the proposed approach as documented in the Registrars' procedural document, which has been voted on by the Registrars; identify any unaddressed issues and develop a TF process to ensure that these additional areas are addressed in a timely manner, reflecting the input of the affected parties
--identify any broad policy issues, which are the responsibility of the DNSO to address, and develop policy recommendations, 
-devise recommendations which have broad cross constituency support  to any identified problems arising from the language of the existing  agreements where policy needs to guide contractual changes.
--make any appropriate recommendations to ICANN staff and to the NC.
--as agreed to at the MdR NC meeting, proceed with a work program to address the above, with a goal of publishing an interim report in January, and a more thorough report in Ghana. 



Friday, November 21, 2001

Dear Transfers TF Members 
 
There are several areas of work and progress for the Transfer TF, which I would like to review with the TF members, and take your input and comments on.  Please provide comments by Wednesday, November 28, 2001, COB your time.    While this is short turn around on comments, this is essentially a summary of the proposed work plan for the TF, as well as a reminder for you to provide input on the Terms of Reference. 

The document below:
Explains a change in posting privileges to the TF members only
Describes the approach to the composition of TF itself; (one per constituency/GA/explanation provided below) 
Provides status on progress on appointments to the TF; and deadlines; 
Suggests a mechanism to ensure input and participation/feedback on specific subjects so that the TF can work in a time effective manner; 
Identifies deadline for comments on the Terms of Reference Document (distributed earlier/attached again)
Outlines a suggested work agenda and seeks comments, edits, additions, etc. [this can obviously be edited as needed during the life of the TF, by agreement of the TF but we should strive to identify what work we need to accomplish and by when]
Provides a space to comment on schedule
Asks you to comment on what will be success for the TF
Asks for other input/contributions from the TF members 

I am happy to take input, comments, complaints, and suggestions. Please e-mail to the list, or to me personally at mcade@att.com.  Remember that for now, the list includes all NC members and the TF members noted below. THAT will change as noted below next week. 

I. Changes in Posting Privileges:  Coming soon!
Please note that it is my intention to change the posting privileges to only the named TF reps. At present, for purposes of participation in a previous briefing call, posting privileges were extended to other folks so that they could post essential materials in a timely manner.  I believe that sufficient time has been allowed for any needed posting and will change that privilege.  Since a couple of constituencies are still naming their rep, I've extended that deadline to next Thursday, November 29, 2001.  New TF reps will be added upon naming to me; but I will ask Glen to make all deletions to the list at once, so we don't burden her with numerous changes.  Please note: all changes need to be sent to me, not to Glen; I'll approve all changes and forward to her so that she can do her job efficiently.   
  
II. Composition of the TF:  one representative per constituency plus chair of GA/designee. 
Due to the expression of conflicts within a couple of constituencies, I had given consideration to whether we could have more than one representative per constituency for this TF; however, since this would represent an exception to the TF rules, I consulted with the NC chair.  The guidance I've received is incorporated below: 
 
* A single NC member should be named as the rep to the Transfer TF:
Rationale:  Any NC representative to a TF is responsible for representing the constituency, not their own organization/company.  If the existing rep finds it impossible, or their constituency indicates that they are not objective, they need to be replaced by a neutral constituency representative. If the constituency is unable to agree on a single view, they should abstain on votes.  (See attachment provided by NC Chair on NC rules related to TF Composition). 

I'll reconfirm the GA decision on their representative with Danny Younger, Chair of the GA. 
  
III.  Designated representatives are:
BC:                 Marilyn Cade
ISP:                Mark McFadden
Registrar:       Ross Rader
Non-Comm:   Milton Mueller 
IPC:	          	Nick Wood
ccTLD: 	to be verified
Registry:         to be verified   
GA:  	Danny Younger or a nominee agreed to by the GA [MC to verify with Danny re replacement proposed by GA]

PLEASE NOTE:  Designation of representative to the TF needs to be finalized.    Should there be a constituency without a representative by Thursday, November 29, 2001, that seat will be noted as vacant.  
 
IV.  Facilitating communication:  
On the other hand, it is my intention to operate the TF with maximum opportunity to provide consultation throughout the TF process, at the request of several of the constituencies.     I propose to host conference calls at appropriate times/identified topics, as agreed to by the TF, throughout the process, where broader participation is supported as it was in the first briefing call. I would expect the TF to reach agreement on this particular process and idea-please comment specifically on this idea.   
 
V.  Work Program:    
Having gotten "WHO we are" out of the way, let's focus on "WHAT WE DO".
 
1. Terms of Reference 
The ToR was posted earlier, and I propose to take comments until November 29. They have been posted for a couple of weeks now; however, I realize that all are busy,  and I suspect that no one has had a chance to focus in on the ToR. Let's strive for 11/29 as closing date for comments to the ToR.                    
 
Note: just protesting the date of close isn't sufficient.    IF you seek more time, you'll be expected to offer substantive language changes within a reasonable time frame.  :) Also, please note that we will be moving ahead with work items and activities in the meantime.     
2. Proposed Work Agenda: Partial list of items: 
* Discussion of  "apparent authority" with ICANN legal counsel.  Conference call with Louie Touton, ICANN Staff: TF chair will organize and schedule in next week or two. 
* Examining indirect and third party issues, including discussion of  who has the "apparent authority" in these instances and how it is documented
* Other issues:  locking of names;  hijacking, accidental deletions, restoration, indemnification as needed, etc.
* Determine if there are other work initiatives for Transfer TF re documentation of complaints re above
* Discussion of Resolution for NC -- when/what?  

3. Proposed Schedule
* Biweekly calls at 7:30 a.m. EST/ to allow participation by A-P representatives
* Schedule of work items-- to be determined by TF from above/plus comments
* Agreement on what will be done and reported by Ghana...  
* Interim Report? Final Report? Next Steps recommendation, etc.? 
* Publication of report outline for comments (when?/how)

4.  How to measure success for TF?

5.  Other items?
 
Prepared by Marilyn Cade, Chair
202-255-7348 or via email:  mcade@att.com

 Attachment regarding TF Composition, from the NC rules, provided to me by the NC chair::

 " c) Task Force - a group equally representative of each NC constituency (typically one from each) and typically charged with forming a recommendation to the NC or implementing an agreed NC  action plan. 
 
3.2 Chair
The chair of an interim committee, committee or task force is appointed by the NC. In the case of a task force the NC typically chooses to ratify the election of a chair by the task force itself. The chair must be an NC member.
 
3.3 Composition of committees and task forces
Both type-b committees and type-c task forces may comprise NC members and/or nominees from outside of the NC provided that:
a) the nominee is nominated by a member of the NC and be a member of the nominees' constituency or, where there is GA involvement, be nominated by the chair of the GA and be a member of the GA
b) a constituency nominee has the support of the three NC members of the constituency
c) the nominee is not also a member of the same ICANN-relevant organization as an NC member on the task force, the NC member taking priority at any time
d) no two nominees are members of the same ICANN-relevant organization, the first nominee taking priority
e) there are at least two NC members of the task force from different constituencies
f) regardless of the number of members of the group no constituency nor the general assembly may have more than one vote 
g) where authority has been delegated by the NC, a simple majority must be NC members, those NC members hold the delegated authority and only those NC members can vote. 
 
Note: An ICANN-relevant organization is defined as one that any NC member considers to be ICANN-relevant.  "