RE: [nc-imp] Transfer Implementation Committee minutes Jan.8, 200 3
That hasn't been decided. Auth codes will of course only apply to EPP
users. That is an issue that will have to be resolved in the migration
From: Nikolaj Nyholm [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:26 AM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Subject: RE: [nc-imp] Transfer Implementation Committee minutes Jan.8,
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'; email@example.com
> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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