[nc-transfer] TF Problems might be helped by a better ToR

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

We have two disputes running on this list.
One concerns the exchange of messages between
Verisign GRS and Tucows regarding transfer 
practices, a subject which is clearly central 
to the task of this TF. The other is a debate over 
representation on the Task Force. 

The two discussions are related, because both 
VerisignGRS and Tucows are claiming to speak for 
the interests of registrants.

The problem is complicated by the need for fairly
rapid action. As I understand the problem that gave
rise to this TF, it is one that requires quick
resolution. If Tucows is right then hundreds, perhaps
thousands of customers are being deliberately 
frustrated every month. If Verisign is right then 
by their own statements current practices permit a
significant number of customers to be slammed.

Given this need, a debate over procedural issues
and a reconstruction of the TF, while clearly
justified, could contribute to the problem at 
least in the short term.

I am wondering whether the problem might be
addressed by redefining the Terms of Reference.

Is it possible to separate the TF work into two
steps? 

Step one: resolve in a definitive and quick way
which of the conflicting interpretations of Exhibit
B of the Registry-Registrar Agreement is DNSO
policy and specifically identify which practices
of Verisign, if any, are out of line.

Step two: identify the broader issues and more
far-reaching changes that might need to be made
in the transfer process. As part of this step,
we broaden the composition of the TF to include
a better means of representing end users and
of ascertaining what is in their best interests.

--MM