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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Bruce, I&nbsp;volunteer to participate on&nbsp;this WG.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim<BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[registrars] Request for volunteers to determine work items<BR>for 6
month review of transfers policy<BR>From: "Bruce Tonkin"
&lt;Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Sat, June 25, 2005
7:05 am<BR>To: registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: "Tina Dam"
&lt;dam@xxxxxxxxx&gt;, "Tim Cole" &lt;cole@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Hello
All,<BR><BR>The GNSO Council is seeking volunteers to participate in a
short-term<BR>working group to help determine what further analysis is
necessary of<BR>the implementation of the transfers policy.<BR><BR>See
below for a description of the working group.<BR><BR>Please let me or
one of the other GNSO Council reps (Tom Keller and Ross<BR>Rader) know
if you wish to participate within the next 7 days. &nbsp;Ross<BR>Rader
will be chairing the working group.<BR><BR>Members of other
constituencies are also invited to participate.<BR><BR>At this stage I
would expect no more than two teleconferences would be<BR>required, and
the remainder of the work carried out via a mailing list<BR>created for
the purpose.<BR><BR>Note the purpose of this working group is not to
propose policy changes.<BR>That may happen as part of a future GNSO
policy development process.<BR>The purpose of this working group is to
determine what further data<BR>analysis is necessary to assist the GNSO
to determine whether and what<BR>refinements to the policy are required.
&nbsp; Ie the working group will<BR>advise the GNSO Council on what
further data should be collected and<BR>analysed, beyond that
undertaken in the 3 month review.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Bruce
Tonkin<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>I
Background<BR>============<BR><BR>Recommendation 28 of the Consensus
Policy on
Transfers:<BR>(http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm
) states:<BR>(I have replaced references to the DNSO and Names Council
with the new<BR>terms)<BR><BR>"That the implementation and execution of
these recommendations be<BR>monitored by the GNSO. Specifically
that;<BR><BR>a. ICANN Staff analyse and report to the GNSO Council at
three, six and<BR>twelve month intervals after implementation with the
goal of<BR>determining;<BR><BR>i. How effectively and to what extent
the policies have been implemented<BR>and adopted by Registrars,
Registries and Registrants,<BR><BR>ii. Whether or not modifications to
these policies should be considered<BR>by the GNSO as a result of the
experiences gained during the<BR>implementation and monitoring
stages,<BR><BR>iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution
processes and a summary<BR>of the filings that have been resolved
through the process.<BR><BR>b. Pursuant to which, the GNSO Council may
instruct the staff to;<BR><BR>i. Continue bi-annual reviews in a manner
consistent with the<BR>aforementioned requirements, or;<BR><BR>ii.
Report again to the GNSO Council in an additional twelve month
time<BR>frame.<BR><BR>c. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting
requirements are to<BR>allow the Names Council to determine when, if
ever, these<BR>recommendations and any ensuing policy require
additional clarification<BR>or attention based on the results of the
reports prepared by ICANN<BR>Staff."<BR><BR>The ICANN staff have
produced a 3 month report dated 14 April 2005,<BR>available
at:<BR>http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf
<BR><BR>The report is based on public comments received, statistics
from<BR>registry operator reports, and questions and complaints
received by<BR>ICANN staff.<BR><BR>Note also that the ICANN Security
and Stability Advisory Committee is<BR>preparing a report on domain
name hijacking, and one of its possible<BR>recommendations which was
discussed in the ICANN meeting in Mar Del<BR>Plata was making it
mandatory for a losing registrar to send a<BR>notification to the
Registrant &nbsp;(this is presently optional for the<BR>losing
registrar). &nbsp; Note that it is still the gaining
registrars<BR>responsibility to authenticate the registrant, and
receive<BR>authorisation.<BR><BR><BR>II Working Group
task<BR>======================<BR><BR>The task of the working group is
to:<BR><BR>(1) review the content of the report of 14 April 2005 with
respect to:<BR><BR>i. How effectively and to what extent the policies
have been implemented<BR>and adopted by Registrars, Registries and
Registrants,<BR><BR>ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies
should be considered<BR>by the GNSO as a result of the experiences
gained during the<BR>implementation and monitoring stages,<BR><BR>iii.
The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a
summary<BR>of the filings that have been resolved through the
process.<BR><BR>(2) Identify the work items for the 6 month review.
&nbsp;In particular<BR>determine what additional information and
analysis is required to assist<BR>the GNSO in determining whether any
refinements are required for the<BR>policy. &nbsp;Note this analysis
may include a similar process to that used<BR>in the recent analysis of
the practices of registrars with respect to<BR>requirements of
registrars to provide information on the purpose for<BR>data collection
and information on the recipients of the data. &nbsp;In this<BR>analysis
an ICANN staff member documented the business processes used by<BR>the
top 10 registrars, and a 10 other registrars chosen randomly.<BR>This
analysis could complement the anecdotal evidence provided
from<BR>public comments and queries received by ICANN staff.<BR><BR>III
Deliverable<BR>================<BR><BR>The working group should produce
a report to the GNSO Council with<BR>recommendations to the GNSO
Council for work to be done by ICANN staff<BR>in the 6 month review.
</BLOCKQUOTE>