DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-transfer] RE: update on what happens next on Transfers

Hello All,

Having attended many discussions on the transfers report over the past few
days, I make the following suggestions to the task force:

(1) Extract from the interim report the higher order policy issues
 - these seem mainly to be listed under "General Principles" in the report
 - lets get individual constituencies to agree or suggest changes to these
general principles

(2) Identify any changes required in the registry/registrar contracts
resulting from (1)

(3) Move many of the implementation details into an appendix titled
"Reference Implementation"
- the details have been important to ensure that the general principles can
be implemented, and to assist those members of the community with an eye for
detail to understand the full business process
- the reference implementation can help guide ICANN staff, registries, and
registrars in the implementation of the policy.

(4) Build into the policy recommendations a formal review process
- e.g 6 months, 12 months, 24 months
- the policy will never cover all issues 100% - it is better to get
implementations of the policy into the community, and then use practical
experience to drive the review.
- the review process should be simple and timely - e.g a 30 day comment
period, one formal meeting, a draft report for email editing, and a final
report to the names council/GNSO.

With regard to further comment periods, the transfer issue has had around 18
months of comments, and there should now be enough information to agree on
the higher order policy issues.   The task force needs to meet and consider
the comments received so far.  At all times additional comments are welcome,
but they are most effective when provided within the existing timelines.  If
persons representing constituencies or larger organisations feel they do not
have time to put in a formal response on behalf of their members, then the
persons should make a submission as an individual (in fact it is preferable
to distinguish formally adopted positions from an individual's submission
made in the best interest of their organisation/constituency).

Bruce Tonkin

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Safran, David; Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; Hollenbeck, Scott;
Cc: Louis Touton (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Bruce Tonkin (E-mail)
Subject: update on what happens next on Transfers

David, thanks.

I need to provide an update to the TF. Let me give some clarification to
what happens next. I've had the chance to consult with the NC chair, and
he's offered some clarification which I've asked him to provide as an email.

First, after he and I reviewed the schedule and the timelines, we realize
that an extension on the comments phase simply isn't possible if we meet our
deadline to get this before the NC this year for a vote. As I stated in the
Public Session this week, I am committed to completing this. The community
needs closure; the users need it, the Registrars need it. 

Although we will not extend the comment period, we will host at least one
more open call with the registrars specifically, for comment/discussions.
This may/may not take place before 11/8, but will be included in the comment

Ross, will you please post an invitation to the Registrar Constituency to
such a conference call, as we committed to in our Sunday session here? I
would suggest 11/12 or 11/13 or 11/14... I also know that we will probably
need two hours for just that consultation. 

We will also have to have a TR-TF call or two. I'll have Marie post a
request for such a call on Thursday, 11/7 at 2:00 p.m. to update all. 

I'll be drafting and proposing how to address a redraft, but essentially, we
would take the comments in for review. We will need to have a few more conf.
calls from now to the completion of our final posting of the final report.
I'd expect to close comments; begin redraft; host the Registrar call as
committed; finish redraft; post a final draft by 11/23 or 25 [didn't check
to see what days those are]. That enables the required 14 day period before
the Council meeting 12/14. Resolutions will be needed by 11/30. 

Therefore, I do not plan to extend the deadline.

I do plan to repeat the call to the Constituencies/GA for comment.

I agree with David's suggestion that we elevate our level of detail in the
final report. We can give "implementation concepts or examples" if the TF
thinks it useful, after further consultation. 

Let's not debate this at this point online, please, but plan to discuss the
approach when we have our call. Secondly, please be sure you've read the
posted comments by the time of the call. I'm hoping that some of you "still
at home" may be ahead of us on the road on that front. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Safran, David [mailto:DSafran@nixonpeabody.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:30 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; Hollenbeck,
Scott; nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] EPP Authorization Information and Domain

I see no problem in extending the deadline one week.  However, I may be
na´ve, but I can't help but feeling that we are making this policy
recommendation more complex than it has to be.  Two thoughts that I would
like to throw in.  First, given the disparate interests of the various
constituencies, we cannot make every constituency totally happy and we
should not waste time trying to find solutions that will; some compromise
will be necesary.  Secondly, I believe that the transfer policy we recommend
should be in terms that everyone, not just registrars and registries
familiar with the mechanics of the various processes can understand.  We
should be deciding what should be done, not  the minute details of how it
should be done, and unless a concept or procedure we want to recommend is
unworkable technically, we should not get bogged down in the mechanics,
which, unfortunately, it appears to me is happening.  I am increasingly
finding it hard to decide how my constituency should stand on the proposals
since more and more of the discussions are focusing on factors which seem to
me to be primarily within the knowledge base of the registrars and
registries, and appear to be directed to mechanics not policy.  

Am I the only one that finds this to be the case?

David S. Safran
Nixon Peabody LLP 
8180 Greensboro Drive
Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
Office:  703.770.9315
Fax:  703.770.9400

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com] 
Sent:	Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:22 PM
To:	Ross Wm. Rader; Neuman, Jeff; Hollenbeck, Scott;
Subject:	RE: [nc-transfer] EPP Authorization Information and Domain

All, I've asked Ross to invite Scott to a discussion on our next Transfer
call/as a guest.
Of course, any TF member always has the ability to ask questions. Should any
of you 
wish to make a presentation of a technical focus, email me offline so I can
allocate time for you as a speaker. that is only if you are stepping out of
your role as a TF member and becoming a "speaker".  or RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:45 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Hollenbeck, Scott;
Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] EPP Authorization Information and Domain

I agree that we need to deal with the reality as it relates to the
recommendations, but that unless we, as a TF, understand what the potential
of the protocol is, our thinking will be constrained by the current

I'm not advocating that we set policy per the spec - we must continue to be
practical, but it might lead us down new paths of consideration that we
haven't explored before.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
To: "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGA'" <mcade@att.com>; "Hollenbeck, Scott"
<shollenbeck@verisign.com>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 18:58 Moo!
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] EPP Authorization Information and Domain

> While I welcome Scott's contribution, I believe that how the protocol was
> originally designed has been overtaken with the political realities of the
> Registry/Registrar relationship.  For example, I am not sure there are
> registrars that would support the idea of the Registry directly
> communicating with the Registrant.  In addition, the contractual realities
> would not protect the registries from fraudulent transfers especially
> because there is no legal relationship.
> That being said, we should listen to Scott, but then I would like a chance
> to explain to the group why the "pure" EPP may not work in reality.
> Thanks.
> Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:53 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; nc-transfer@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] EPP Authorization Information and Domain
> Transfers
> Scott, I welcome this submission.
> I think this is worth further discussion. I don't know if you envision
> co-existence of the two? However, I wonder whether also, some registrants
> might comment on whether registrant management has limitations due to the
> reality that many registrants are extremely ... could I suggest,
> I don't know enough at this point about what you are envisioning and
> some further dialogue with the TF will be helpful to us. I've asked Ross
> Rader if he can coordinate with you toward such a dialogue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:16 AM
> To: 'nc-transfer@dnso.org'
> Subject: [nc-transfer] EPP Authorization Information and Domain
> Transfers
> During today's transfer task force presentation in Shanghai I noted the
> description of EPP authorization information (called "authorization codes"
> during the presentation) with interest.  As the author of EPP I'd like to
> suggest an alternative to the method of sharing authorization information
> with registrants as described during the presentation [1] and as currently
> practiced by some registrars:
> When I originally envisioned the authorization information concept, I
> believed it would be most useful if a registrant provided the registrar
> their desired authorization information as part of the process of managing
> the registration of a domain name.  That is, when a name is registered the
> authorization information (typically a password) would be provided by the
> registrant as part of the registration process and passed through the
> registrar to the registry.  If forgotten, the authorization information
> could be retrieved for the registrant from the registry through the
> registrar.  The registrant would thus possess the authorization
> at all times, and nothing would need to be collected from the registrar to
> facilitate a transfer.
> EPP does not require a registrar to solicit authorization information from
> registrant, nor does it require the registrar to create authorization
> information for registrants to be returned when requested.  The specific
> method of generating authorization information is a matter of registry and
> registrar business practice, with the protocol being flexible enough to
> support different business practices.
> Anyway, to cut to the chase I'd like to simply suggest that the task force
> consider that there is at least one other way to use authorization
> information to facilitate domain name transfers.  Registrar management of
> authorization information is one option.  Registrant management of
> authorization information is another.
> Scott Hollenbeck
> VeriSign Global Registry Services
> [1]
> "Registrars must provide Registrants with authorization codes (where
> applicable) within 72 hours."

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