[registrars] Transfers Discussion in Shanghai
Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD
You are invited to participate in a "Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD
Domain Names," on Tuesday, 29 October 2002, from 10:30 - 12:30 in the Shanghai
International Convention Center. The Public Discussion is being held in
conjunction with the DNSO General Assembly, Registrars Constituency, gTLD
Registries Constituency, and Name Council Transfers Task Force.
Remote participation is encouraged – join by phone
or participate via e-mail. Please check – http://www.icann.org/shanghai/ –
for information on dialing-in and accessing real-time scribing. When offering
comments, please state who you represent (yourself, a specific constituency, an
organization, etc.) and what role you/they have with regard to transfers
(registrant, registrar, registry, IP interest, etc.) This will allow better
categorizations of the feedback received.
The purpose of the Public
Discussion is to educate participants on the fundamental issues regarding
transfers, receive a status report from, and comment on, the work of the Names
Council Task Force on Transfers, and discuss potential ICANN actions. (There is
no ICANN Board action contemplated on transfers at the Shanghai
For your information, background information, an agenda and
sample questions on some of the issues that are expected to be addressed during
the Public Discussion are included below.
If you have any questions,
please e-mail the Moderator, Denise Michel at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Background information relevant to the Public Discussion can be found at the
10:30 Brief introductions and overviews
Introductions (Denise Michel, Moderator)
Overview of existing contracts (Dan Halloran, Chief Registrar
Overview of current environment (Michael Palage, Chair, Registrars
Update on "Verisign Registry Interim Transfer Policy Proposal" (Chuck
Gomes, Verisign Registry)
10:55 Presentation of Names Council Transfers Task Force report (Marilyn
Cade and Ross Rader, Task Force chair/member)
11:15 Open Discussion
12:20 Conclusion & Next Steps
- The impetus for review of the transfers policy and processes was the
adoption by some Registrars of a default non-acknowledgement (n'ack) policy in
order to protect their customers from unauthorized transfers. Do you think the
Task Force proposal accomplishes this goal? Does the proposed transfer policy
offer a reasonable balance between the following two objectives: 1) making
registrar transfers as easy as possible for registrants; 2) providing
protection against fraudulant or erroneous transfers?
- How would ICANN's responsibilities change, if at all, under the Task Force
- Under the Task Force proposal, what additional responsibilities and costs
would the parties involved bear, and are they reasonable?
- Is the Task Force proposal responsive to all of your constituencies
concerns regarding transfers
- How would the Task Force's proposal affect EPP vs. non-EPP registries?
Large vs. smaller Registrars?
- Will the fact that a Registrar that loses an appeal in the dispute process
pays the costs of the appeal (as proposed by the Task Force) discourage
Registrars from appealing transfers - or do you think it will deter Registrars
from engaging in behavior that discourages the free portability of domain
- Should failure of the losing registrar to respond to the gaining one (or
of the registrant to respond to the losing registrar) lead to acknowledgement
or non-acknowledgement? What does your constituency think about the Task
- It has been suggested that the proposed ICANN "Ombudsman" be used, in lieu
of a dispute resolution panel/provider or "third party," to facilitate the
resolution of domain name transfer disputes. Is this a feasible idea?
- Under the Task Force proposal, what is the Registrant's responsibilities
and course of action if they feel a transfer is not being handled properly?
How does this differ from current practice?
- Concerns have been raised that Registrants often are not provided with the
necessary information to transfer their domain name or seek help if they have
a transfer problem or question. How does the Task Force proposal address this
- Under the Task Force proposal, would Registrars have the right to enter
into bilateral agreements with each other that potentially bypass the full
transfer process recommended by the Task Force? Likewise, would Registries
have the right to sign unique (rather than uniform) bilateral agreements with
Registrars that streamline some Registrars' transfers? If so, how would this
potentially affect transfers?
- How would the Task Force proposal be implemented? Do the proposed changes
in the domain name transfer process need to be implemented by a Board
resolution directing staff to provide an amendment for Registry/Registrar
contracts (Aren't these 5 year contracts? Can ICANN "force" the parties to
amend them?) Or would the proposed changes need to be implemented by voluntary
modifications of Registry/Registrar contracts? (Some have expressed a
preference for a "universal transfer policy" rather than several
Registry-specific implementations, while others contend that individual
Registry/Registrar contracts are the most efficient method for effecting the
necessary changes. What is the view of your constituency (how would each
approach potentially effect your constituency)?