[nc-transfer] Draft resolution
Jeff et al
I would prefer, at this stage, to stick to the wording that I "drafted" on the call, namely:
2. The ICANN Board should direct the ICANN staff to implement the policy through contract amendments to the [ICANN Accredited Registrar] [Registry-Registrar] contract(s) to give effect to the recommendations in the IRDX report
I think there is a desire, as expressed through the email discussions, that we (ultimately the NC) be explicit as to how we "direct" the staff regarding which contract the transfers policy is enacted through - so as to address concerns over ICANN's involvement.
Jeff's amendment is silent on which contract - but can also be read to mean the ICANN Registrar Accreditation contract, as this is the only contract (that I have been made aware of) in which ICANN is a party.
Does the TF think:
A) we need to be explicit as to the contract in which the policy is enacted?
B) that, if yes to A), then is there a preference to the contract?
C) that Jeff's wording can only be read as the ICANN Registrar Accreditation contract - as this is the only contract in which ICANN is a party to?
Wording suggestion for additional point in the resolution which will hopefully provide a single recommendation to address 3,4,5 as noted in my draft and also is wide enough for the staff to develop the specific wording in conjunction with the Registrars.
3. Implementation should include the Registrars and ICANN staff together developing a regular audited Registrar self reporting of their performance in actioning transfer requests and the resultant outcomes. This reporting to be public and monitored by ICANN for the purpose of contract enforcement and review of the transfers policy.
Hope that is clear, I look forward to fellow TF members comments