[registrars] Fw: [nc-transfer] Draft Resolution

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

FYI


                       -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



----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Forsyth" <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
To: "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'" <mcade@att.com>; "Transfer TF (E-mail)"
<nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:49 PM
Subject: [nc-transfer] Draft Resolution


> 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