DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-transfer] Draft Resolution


I'm agree with this draft of resolution. The problem of legal conflict's in 
our recommendation, is a problem for the lawyers of the ICANN in the 
renovation of the contract.

Erick Iriarte Ahon
Non Commercial Constituency Rep
Transfers Task Force

At 09:28 a.m. 23/10/2002 +1300, Grant Forsyth wrote:

>Fellow task force members
>This is the slightly updated draft resolution.
>The only change is to the 2nd resolution and represents Jeff's suggestion
>that we not be too explicit as to how ICANN implement our policy
>recommendations (hence I have left out mention of specific contracts).
>Whereas in early 2001 complaints were raised regarding denials of requested
>transfers which prompted Verisign Registrar on 25 May 2001 to impose its own
>approach to the problem, which then prompted ICANN President, Stuart Lynn,
>on 27 August 2001 to write to the Registrar Constituency recommending that a
>new policy be created, which resulted in the Names Council on a conference
>call of 11 October 2001 to form the Transfers Task Force with terms of
>reference as recorded at:
>Whereas the Transfers Task Force had been deflected from its primary task of
>reviewing the issues surrounding Transfers and developing policy to address
>Transfers by a request to consider the issues surrounding Verisign's request
>to ICANN to launch a Wait List Service (WLS) (transactions on that effort
>are recorded on various lists found at:
>Whereas having dealt to the issue of WLS, the Transfers Task Force resumed
>its work of considering the issues surrounding Transfers and drafted a set
>of policy recommendations, this effort being recorded at:
>Whereas the Names Council Transfers Task Force presents a comprehensive set
>of policy and process recommendations in the form of the attached report,
>"Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfer: Principles and Process for Gaining
>and Losing Registrars" (IRDX report) version 2 revision 0 (2.0), the latest
>copy of which is can be found at:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ and is attached [Ross to
>attach latest report]
>[Whereas some members of the Names Council wish to have recorded alternative
>wording to the final IRDX report, those Minority Reports can be found at:
><web address included> ](Note: this part of the resolution would only make
>its way through to the final resolution should there be a Minority
>The Names Council resolves, on the recommendation of the Transfers Task
>Force, that:
>1. The ICANN Board accept the policy and process recommendations contained
>within the IRDX report <version x.y (final version number to be inserted
>2. The NC Resolves that the ICANN Board should direct the ICANN staff to
>conduct negotiations toward appropriate revisions to agreements between
>ICANN and the gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars as appropriate to
>implement the recommendations in the IRDX report.
>Hope this is useful and gets us closer to closing off this important matter
>Grant Forsyth
>Business Constituency Rep
>Transfers Task Force

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>