RE: [nc-imp] Transfer Implementation Committee minutes Jan.8, 200 3
How will auth codes be handled if some registrars are on EPP and some on
Or will auth codes only be introduced once all registrars are on EPP?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@veriSign.com]
> Sent: 13. januar 2003 15:20
> To: 'DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org'; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-imp] Transfer Implementation Committee
> minutes Jan.8, 200 3
> One clarification: The soonest that .com and .net would be
> migrated to EPP
> would be the end of 2003 and even if that happens that would
> probably only
> be for a subset of registrars. Migration of all registrars probably
> wouldn't happen until mid-2004 at the earliest.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [nc-imp] Transfer Implementation Committee minutes
> Jan.8, 2003
> GNSO Council Transfer Implementation Committee
> Teleconference on 8 January
> Registrar - Bruce Tonkin
> Registrar - Nikolaj Nyholm
> Registrar - Tim Ruiz
> Registrar - Ross Rader
> Registrar - Donna McGehee"
> Registrar - Elana Broitman"
> Registry - Jeff Neuman
> Registry - Chuck Gomes
> Registry - Andrew Sullivan
> Registry - Bruce Beckwith
> User Rep - Grant Forsyth
> UserRep - David Safran
> Clarification: Grant Forsyth and David Safran are liaisons from the
> Transfers Task Force with an end user perspective, and are
> able to provide
> any clarifications sought by registries and registrars on the
> intent of the
> task force behind particular recommendations.
> Bruce Tonkin introduced the meeting saying that he was the
> interim chair of
> the transfers implementation committee and asked whether
> anyone wanted to
> chair the committee.
> No-one offered.
> The mandate for this working group is defined in the
> following resolution
> which was adopted by the DNSO Names Council on December 14, 2002 in
> Amsterdam Netherlands by a unanimous vote of the Council.
> "The Names Council accepts the policy recommendations that were in
> theTransfer Task Force Report of 30 November.
> The Names Council will form an implementation analysis
> committee which will
> comprise of the Registries and Registrars with ICANN staff
> and user liaisons
> from the Transfer task force.
> That it will complete its analysis by 30 January 2003
> The GNSO Council will then meet to discuss the final Board
> report in its
> meeting in February and the final Board report will be
> forwarded with the
> aim to reach ICANN Board 30 days prior to the meeting in Rio
> de Janeiro.
> The implementation committee report will present the findings on the
> feasibility of the policy and it will be added to the
> Transfers Task Force
> report, which will become the Board report."
> Bruce Tonkin explained concern was expressed about implementing the 29
> recommendations and the issues arising may be technical,
> legal or business
> process orientated.
> Bruce noted that implementation was in
> - an environment based on EPP registry /registrar protocol
> such as used in
> .biz, .info, .name and in some country code registries such
> as .us and .au.
> - an environment used by a major registrar for .net and .com
> operated by
> Verisign which used the RRP protocol. The EPP protocol would
> not be in use
> for .net and .com until the end of 2003.
> He suggested, from a registrars perspective, to send comments and
> recommendations on technical or legal implementation issues
> to the mailing
> The .com, .net, .info, .biz, .org registries may comment indicating
> implementation problems or recommendations on where language should be
> tightened up, or particularly where they would have a role in dispute
> resolution between registrars.
> Ross Rader emphasized his hope that the process would be
> rigid and set a
> standard for further committees and task forces
> Major issues:
> - Standardized texts
> that an achievement of the committee might be coming to some
> agreement among
> the registrars as to what "standardized texts" are.
> - Denying a transfer
> The task force recommends that the losing registrar should
> not deny the
> transfer if they are unable to obtain a response from the
> registrant to an
> authentication message..
> The task force recommends that the loosing registrar should
> not deny the
> The implementation committee should give some security to the
> Registrant and
> Registrar involved.
> - Administrative channels issue, where registrars have resellers
> - Language issue
> Grant Forsyth, addressing a concern expressed by Ross Rader
> about the true
> goal of the group, asked whether the committee's output was a
> manual, legal drafting or further administrative details and
> guidelines that
> flesh out the task force report.
> Bruce Tonkin stated the objectives were to identify any problems in
> implementating the recommendations, and attempt to suggest
> some solutions to
> these problems.
> A rough timeline for the committee could be:
> - within a week gathering comments on the recommendations
> - 3rd week of January draft implementation report
> - 4th week of January finalize the report
> The output is twofold:
> 1. What are the issues that make implementing any
> recommendation difficult.
> 2. Where objections are made how can they be dealt with.
> An example given:
> Standardized text issue: How does one handle multiple languages in a
> standard message and here is a suggestion to deal with
> multiple languages.
> Bruce Tonkin expressed his view on the committee's aim:
> - Identify the most controversial recommendations
> - Identify why there are implementation difficulties
> - Give solutions to the implementation difficulties
> Grant Forsyth asked the other registrars on the call what
> they expected to
> get out of the committee.
> Ross Rader expected a statement taking geographical, cultural
> and legal
> considerations into account which would be a long process but
> agreed that
> feasibility would be a good start.
> Nikolaj Nyholm said looking at the recommendations in a
> structured manner
> was the first important step.
> Jeff Neuman agreed on feasibility and added that the
> Registrars should be
> both willing and able to carry out the functions.
> Clarification on what the
> registries are advised to do, how each provision should be
> interpreted and
> implemented so that in case of a dispute there is something
> to fall back on.
> Chuck Gomes said the biggest priority is that proposals are
> from a registrars point of view. Contractual issues should be
> such that
> Registrars are able to sign. The Registries are willing to take more
> responsibilities in terms of enforcement and dispute
> resolution if there is
> clearly defined support from the registrars.
> Nikolaj Nyholm asked for clarification from a task force
> member to what
> extent the EPP based registry could take over the process of
> transfers, to
> which Jeff Neuman and Steve Metalitz who were on the task
> force said that it
> was never discussed.
> Ross Rader added that the task force focussed on requirements
> that were as
> implementation neutral as possible and goals to be achieved,
> not mechanisms
> leading to these.The rationale being that Registrars and
> Registries would
> work out the most suitable implementation procedures.
> Bruce Tonkin stressed that the implementation committee was looking at
> issues that will become binding policy for registrars and
> Registries, rather
> than what particular registries may want to provide in implementation.
> Chuck Gomes mentioned two different challenges for .com and .net.
> - Short term solutions for .com .net, with the RRP protocol, until the
> migration to EPP. Example, EPP protocol has auth- info
> capabilities and RRP
> does not. To change the IRP protocol to make place for this
> would be too
> - Thin registry which is the case, in contrast to a thick registry, is
> another issue in the implementation process.
> With regard to the timeframe for the transition to EPP protocol, the
> protocol standard is still to be finalized and some
> registrars would move in
> latter half of 2003. The RRP and EPP protocols would both be
> offered for
> some time.
> A survey of registrars show that they are not looking for a
> long transition
> Grant Forsyth asked how transfers would be handled during the
> period, given that there would be no change in the RRP protocol?
> During the transition period registrars must use one or the
> other protocol.
> Chuck Gomes predicted that would be some variation in
> transfer policy for
> EPP because of the auth-info capability that allows the
> registry to confirm
> that the registrant requesting is in fact authorized to do so.
> An important issue is the implementation of auth-info codes
> in EPP protocol
> because at the moment there are a variety of implementations.
> It is important that it is appropriately implemented and that there is
> agreement on what is "appropriate".
> Andrew Sullivan from Afilias confirmed the interest to move
> quickly from RRP
> to EPP protocol for the .org registry.
> Ross Rader's Proposed Terms of Reference:
> 1. To analyze the feasibility of the twenty-nine policy
> recommendations of
> the DNSO NC Task Force on Inter-Registrar Transfers
> 2. To formulate a report detailing the findings of the
> analysis which will
> include all details concerning whether or not the policy
> recommendations are
> 3. To present this report and all supporting documentation to
> the Names
> Council for consideration and inclusion in the Final Report
> of the Transfers
> Task Force no later than January 30, 2003.
> Proposed Milestones: 01/08/03 - Introductory conference call,
> of final participants, election of chair, review and
> acceptance of TOR and
> Milestones, establishment of feasibility criteria, call for analysis.
> 01/15/03 - Call for analysis closes.
> 01/15/03 - Group review of analyses presented, feedback
> gathered, additional
> concerns solicited.
> 01/22/03 - Draft Final Report completed, reviewed as group.
> 01/26/03 - Second review of Draft Final Report, final
> considerations worked
> into draft.
> 01/27/03 - Final Report completed, tabled with ImpComm for adoption.
> 01/29/03 - Final meeting/teleconferenceImpComm Adoption/Rejection
> 01/30/03 - Presented to Names Council for consideration.
> Chuck Gomes felt that where a recommendation is not implementable an
> alternative approach could be suggested for consideration,
> one that would
> presumably be implementable.
> The GNSO council is the recipient of the report that will be
> forwarding the
> combination report to the ICANN Board.
> Bruce Tonkin proposed that Ross Rader's proposal for terms of
> reference and
> timelines be accepted.
> Accepted unanimously
> Task for the next call: Go through the recommendations and
> get comments to
> the list.
> Next call: Wednesday 15 January 20:00 UTC, EST 15:00/Thursday
> 16 January
> Melbourne 07:00
> Bruce Tonkin closed the call at 21:00 UTC, EST 16:00/
> Melbourne Thursday
> Information from: (c) GNSO Names Council