RE: [registrars] Request for volunteers to determine work items for 6 month review of transfers policy

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bruce,

In this circumstance I would recommend that feedback be taken from the
registrars constituency meeting that will be taking place on this subject.
We will be meeting within ourself, as well as withICANN and the Registries
to discuss various aspects of the Transfer policy in Luxembourg. This will
result in several points of feedback, which someone should note and present
to this short-term working group.

Thanks
Bhavin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:35 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: Tina Dam; Tim Cole
> Subject: [registrars] Request for volunteers to determine 
> work items for 6 month review of transfers policy
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> The GNSO Council is seeking volunteers to participate in a 
> short-term working group to help determine what further 
> analysis is necessary of the implementation of the transfers policy.
> 
> See below for a description of the working group.
> 
> Please let me or one of the other GNSO Council reps (Tom 
> Keller and Ross
> Rader) know if you wish to participate within the next 7 
> days.  Ross Rader will be chairing the working group.
> 
> Members of other constituencies are also invited to participate.
> 
> At this stage I would expect no more than two teleconferences 
> would be required, and the remainder of the work carried out 
> via a mailing list created for the purpose.
> 
> Note the purpose of this working group is not to propose 
> policy changes.
> That may happen as part of a future GNSO policy development process.
> The purpose of this working group is to determine what 
> further data analysis is necessary to assist the GNSO to 
> determine whether and what
> refinements to the policy are required.   Ie the working group will
> advise the GNSO Council on what further data should be 
> collected and analysed, beyond that undertaken in the 3 month review.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Background
> ============
> 
> Recommendation 28 of the Consensus Policy on Transfers:
> (http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm ) states:
> (I have replaced references to the DNSO and Names Council with the new
> terms)
> 
> "That the implementation and execution of these 
> recommendations be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically that;
> 
> a. ICANN Staff analyse and report to the GNSO Council at 
> three, six and twelve month intervals after implementation 
> with the goal of determining;
> 
> i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been 
> implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants,
> 
> ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be 
> considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained 
> during the implementation and monitoring stages,
> 
> iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes 
> and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through 
> the process.
> 
> b. Pursuant to which, the GNSO Council may instruct the staff to;
> 
> i. Continue bi-annual reviews in a manner consistent with the 
> aforementioned requirements, or;
> 
> ii. Report again to the GNSO Council in an additional twelve 
> month time frame.
> 
> c. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements 
> are to allow the Names Council to determine when, if ever, 
> these recommendations and any ensuing policy require 
> additional clarification or attention based on the results of 
> the reports prepared by ICANN Staff."
> 
> The ICANN staff have produced a 3 month report dated 14 April 
> 2005, available at:
> http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf 
> 
> The report is based on public comments received, statistics 
> from registry operator reports, and questions and complaints 
> received by ICANN staff.
> 
> Note also that the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory 
> Committee is preparing a report on domain name hijacking, and 
> one of its possible recommendations which was discussed in 
> the ICANN meeting in Mar Del Plata was making it mandatory 
> for a losing registrar to send a notification to the 
> Registrant  (this is presently optional for the
> losing registrar).   Note that it is still the gaining registrars
> responsibility to authenticate the registrant, and receive 
> authorisation.
> 
> 
> II Working Group task
> ======================
> 
> The task of the working group is to:
> 
> (1) review the content of the report of 14 April 2005 with respect to:
> 
> i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been 
> implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants,
> 
> ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be 
> considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained 
> during the implementation and monitoring stages,
> 
> iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes 
> and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through 
> the process.
> 
> (2) Identify the work items for the 6 month review.  In 
> particular determine what additional information and analysis 
> is required to assist the GNSO in determining whether any 
> refinements are required for the policy.  Note this analysis 
> may include a similar process to that used in the recent 
> analysis of the practices of registrars with respect to 
> requirements of registrars to provide information on the 
> purpose for data collection and information on the recipients 
> of the data.  In this analysis an ICANN staff member 
> documented the business processes used by the top 10 
> registrars, and a 10 other registrars chosen randomly.
> This analysis could complement the anecdotal evidence 
> provided from public comments and queries received by ICANN staff.
> 
> III Deliverable
> ================
> 
> The working group should produce a report to the GNSO Council 
> with recommendations to the GNSO Council for work to be done 
> by ICANN staff
> in the 6 month review.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>