[registrars] Transfers TF Update

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

Folks,

I just wanted to give you another heads up regarding the activities of
the Transfers TF since my last update.

Progress;

1) Definition of Apparent Authority: The TF has agreed, in principle,
that defining apparent authority be side-stepped in favor of identifying
which entities have the right to request and approve the transfer of a
domain name. The current thinking is that in all cases the
Administrative Contact of record and the Registrant be the only two
entities that have this authority and that the wishes of the Registrant
supercede that of the Administrative Contact.

2) Default Rule: The TF has agreed, in principle, that an entity with
the authority to request and approve the transfer of a domain name must
do so by filing a request with the Gaining Registrar who will be
responsible for executing the process. The Losing Registrar may still
"n'ack" individual requests based on a set of pre-defined guidelines,
but not as a standard operating procedure. I understand that there is
some level of disonnance with this within the RC and I will be seeking
further clarification over the coming weeks to better understand the
scope of disagreement and what compromise, if appropriate, is available
to us.

3) Standardized Form of Authorization: The TF has agreed, in principle,
that the Gaining Registrar must employ a standardized form by which they
obtain authorization for transfer from the Administrative Contact and/or
Registrant. It is my intent to ensure that this form is media
independent (ie - it works just as well via the web as it does on
paper). Further uses of this FOA by the Losing Registrar are
contemplated by the document and have not changed.

Outstanding Issues;

1) Out-of-band Approvals: We still have not reached agreement as to what
constitutes an "out-of-band" approval and whether or not the policy
needs to explicitly address them. If the policy need addresses this type
of approval, then we must still determine what basic standards must
apply.

2) Terms, Scope and Responsibility for Enforcement: The constituency has
not yet determined which entity should be responsible for enforcing the
execution of this policy. The Registry Constituency has indicated that
they are only willing to deal with enforcement on the same limited terms
that they do today (see Jeff Neuman's earlier email to the list - a
further response forthcoming from me shortly). The most important aspect
of this point of contention is who bears the cost of enforcement. My
position on behalf of the constituency thus far has been that the
registry operators must either bear the cost of enforcement as they do
today, or come up with an alternate model that does not materially
impact registrars or registrants economically. Comments on this
particular point by Constituency members are especially welcomed.

3) Form of the Standard Form of Authorization: What does this specific
document look like and what information must it contain.


Outreach;

The TF is holding an open call later this week. I will forward the
invitation and call-in details to the list under separate cover.

--

Lastly, I expect to forward an additional revision of the IRDX document
to the TF and Registrar Constituency mailing lists some time over the
next 24 hours. In the meantime, if there are any questions, please do
not hesitate to drop me a line.





                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow