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

["Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would also like to volunteer to participate on this working group.
 
Margie

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:58 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Tina Dam; Tim Cole; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Request for volunteers to determine work items for 6 month review of transfers policy


Bruce, I volunteer to participate on this WG.
 
Tim




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] Request for volunteers to determine work items
for 6 month review of transfers policy
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, June 25, 2005 7:05 am
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: "Tina Dam" <dam@xxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Cole" <cole@xxxxxxxxx>

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. 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005