Re: [registrars] Transfers TF Report

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

Bhavin,

As promised, please find a quick review of my notes from Shanghai and some
indication as to what the TF did with those suggestions raised by
Registrars.

My notes may be incomplete, so if there were other concerns raised, I'd be
happy to elaborate for the record how the TF dealt with any specifics that I
haven't covered here...

I hope this is useful - please don't hesitate to request further
clarification etc.

-rwr


Shanghai Registrar Comments on Interim Report:

Suggestion/Concern: Concerns about the level of automation required under
the proposal.
Note: Some registrars said "more automation" others said "let us choose".
The Task Force essentially recommends a "Let us choose" approach while
bounding it with predictable processes. In other words, it is possible to
implement the recommendations of the task force using manual processes, but
its not recommended ;)

Suggestion/Concern: Final report should include temporal distinctions around
non-payment and a registrars right not to allow a transfer if the domain
name hasn't been paid for.
Note: The Task Force specifically recommends that registrars can choose not
to honor a transfer request if the domain name isn't paid for. Distinction
is made between "pending registration periods, ie, the next one, or
current - within the 405 day lifecycle of a registration period.

Suggestion/Concern: Registrars have no consensus on the use of "lock" as it
relates to the Interim Report recommendations.
Note: The TF drastically revised its initial recommendation and now only
specifically recommends that Registrants should be able to easily unlock
their domain name.

Suggestion/Concern: An "undo" process should be recommended.
Note: Fully included in the final report.

Suggestion/Concern: We should, where possible, rely on a protocol based
solution.
Note: This is an implementation detail and while the TF did provide comments
on the subject, it was beyond our scope to determine what technology or
level of technology should be employed.

Suggestion/Concern: Due process needs to be recognized in the dispute
resolution process.
Note: The design of the dispute process is intentionally left vague so as to
provide Registrars, Registries and ICANN staff ample opportunity to
determine what constitutes "due process" and other key items of concern.

Suggestion/Concern: Several different reasons for lock, autolock, lock on
non-payment, etc. If there report is going to talk about "lock" it needs to
make these distinctions.
Notes: Due to the revisions talked about above, the need for this
distinction became unnecessary.

Suggestion/Concern: Passing standardized result codes between registrars
would eliminate some of the communications overhead.
Note: Another point left for implementation and not specifically covered by
the TF recs.

Suggestion/Concern: Language of communications is a concern.
Note: This concern was noted by the TF and included in the final report.

Suggestion/Concern: More work needs to be done regarding EPP. There are many
mistakes that we have yet to make with EPP and we should try to avoid
similar problems if we can.
Note: In large part, the TF deferred to the operational experience of
Registrars and Registries on this point but specifically recommended review
and correction processes that would allow us to change the policy in cases
where things like the EPP were being dealt with inappropriately.

Suggestion/Concern: We should use a Standardized Form to obtain
authorization for a transfer.
Note: Specifically covered by the Interim & Final report.

Suggestion/Concern: The terms "current" and "pending" as it relates to
payment period needs to be defined.
Note: The TF specifically discussed this and determined that this would end
up being a specific legal definition that was best left to Registrars,
Registries and ICANN staff to determine as part of the implementation. It
remains, therefore, undefined by the Final Report.

Suggestion/Concern: Are we talking about arbitration or mediation as it
relates to the dispute process.
Note: The Task Force recommendations specifically discuss arbitration, but
the specific processes are left out as being implementation details.

Suggestion/Concern: Silence is not assent in some jurisdictions, this needs
to be taken into account.
Note: This issue was not dealt with by the report as those that raised the
concern failed to provide the TF with input as to whether or not explicit
and informed consent obtained by the Gaining Registrar was sufficient
indication that "silence" did not in fact exist. In other words, how can a
registrant be silent if they have explicitly acknowledged and confrimed
their request with the Gaining Registrar.