[nc-transfer] this is the posted document on the archives which summarizes the history of how the Transfer TF got started... provided for background purposes

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

DRAFT 

FOR COMMENT BY DESIGNATED REPS TO THE NC TASK FORCE ON TRANSFERS

Background:

In early spring, 2001, complaints began to surface from a number of registrars regarding denials of requested transfers, including substantial delays and confusing responses.   May 25, 2001, Verisign Registrar contacted the other registrars that it was taking specific actions to address this situation and announced a policy which seems to be in conflict with the default policy outlined in Appendix B of the Verisign-Registrar Accreditation Agreement.  On July 16, 2001, Verisign Corporate advised Stuart Lynn, President, ICANN, that they had adopted a default non acknowledgement (n'ack) policy in order to protect their customers from unauthorized transfers.  On August 27, 2001, Stuart Lynn replied to the Registrar Constituency recommending that a new policy be created to deal with the problem. Louie Touton, General Counsel and Secretary, ICANN, replied to the Verisign request , indicating that registars may not deny transfer requests that the gaining registrar has verified  simply because the losing registrar has not verified it.  (documentation from the Registrars provide additional details, but are not included in this background summary for brifity purposes.)  

During July, August, and September, the Registrar Constituency has been involved in developing and approving within the constituency a protocol for handling of transfers, with the intent that this protocol would be followed by all accredited registrars, thus giving certainty to the registrant of what happens when they change registrars, or when their designated agent changes registrars on their behalf. . After extensive drafting and discussion, a final document with extensive guidance was produced, and put to a vote by the Registrars.  
The outcome of the vote:
Of 40 registars voting, 3 against, one abstention, and 36 supporting.  The Registrar Constituency provides further detail on this topic at www.icann-registrars.org <http://www.icann-registrars.org>.  The vote held supported the default "ack" policy, which essentially means that the losing registry transfers the registrant, upon receipt of the request from the "gaining" registry. 

However, in spite of the vote, there is not complete acceptance within the Registrars Constiutency and at least one, and maybe more registrars are not yet in compliance with the recommended procedure, as defined in the registrar protocol for transfers.

When this situation came to the attention of some of the other constituencies prior to Montevideo, it became apparent that the other constituencies were not informed of the situation, nor the proposed solution under development by the Registrars.  A briefing was held by three constituencies (IPC, ISPCP, BC) with the Registrars Constituency representative.  It became apparent that the other constituencies believe that their members (users/registrants) are being affected by this situation and some questioned whether there are policy as well as contract issues.   It is also clear that while the protocol is a first step, additional areas of work are needed, and this is acknowledged by the Registrar Constituency. 

The issue was brought to the attention of the Names Council on an ensuing conference call (October 11, 2001)  and a "fast track Task Force created;  Marilyn Cade as interim chair. 

Terms of Reference for Task Force on Transfers

The purpose of the Task Force on Transfers is to:

--develop broad understanding across the NC of the issues underlying the disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars 
--ensure  understanding of the proposed approach as documented in the Registrars' procedural document, which has been voted on by the Registrars
--identify any broad policy issues (separate from contract issues), which are the responsibility of the DNSO

-devise recommendations which have broad cross constituency support  to any identified problems arising from the language of the existing  agreements where policy needs to guide contractual changes.

--undertake a "fast track" working effort, via a Task Force,  to present a proposal for NC consideration at Marina del Ray NC meeting and to recommend next steps, if any. 

Status:
Each constituency has been asked to nominate their designated rep.  Since no constituencies have provided names, all members of the NC and Danny Younger, as Chair of the  GA, were added to the NC-Transfer listserv by Marilyn Cade, as interim chair of the TF.  A second call for nominations, to be made by November 7, has been posted by Philip Sheppard, NC chair.  Nominations should be sent to Marilyn Cade at mcade@att.com <mailto:mcade@att.com>, with a cc to DNSO Secretariat@dnso.org <mailto:Secretariat@dnso.org>.   The listserv for the Task Force is at NC-transfer@dnso.org <mailto:NC-transfer@dnso.org>.

It has become very clear that an informational basis is required to support the NC reps, both of the Task Force, and the full NC. A teleconference briefing on the issue is scheduled for November 6,  9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. EST/U.S. (Secretariat to provide other times for different time zones.)

The agenda for the call is posted separately.