[announce] Transfers meeting notice

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

[To: liaison7c@dnso.org]
[To: announce@dnso.org]

FYI

----- Forwarded message from Denise Michel
<denisemichel@sbcglobal.net> -----

Meeting Notice
Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD Domain Names

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 meeting.)

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
michel@icann.org.

Background Information

Background information relevant to the Public Discussion can be found at the
following URLs:

  a.. Registrar Constituency Proposal
  b.. Registrars Constituency background on transfers
  c.. Names Council Transfer Task Force material/lists -- (see #6)
  d.. Names Council Transfer Task Force mailing list archives
  e.. Names Council Transfer Task Force Terms of reference
  f.. ICANN DNSO Transfers Task Force Request for Comments (Status:
Committee Final)
  g.. Verisign Registry Interim Transfer Policy Proposal
  h.. ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement
  i.. ICANN Registry Agreements
  j.. Registrar Accreditation Overview
  k.. Policy on Transfer of Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars
(Exhibit B to Appendix F to the .com Registry Agreement; .net and .org
identical)
  l.. General Counsel's Briefing Concerning Implementation of Policies by
Registrars and Registry Operators
Agenda

  10:30 Brief introductions and overviews

    Introductions (Denise Michel, Moderator)

    Overview of existing contracts (Dan Halloran, Chief Registrar Liaison)

    Overview of current environment (Michael Palage, Chair, Registrars
Constituency)

    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

  12:30 Adjourn

Sample Questions

  a.. 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?


  b.. How would ICANN's responsibilities change, if at all, under the Task
Force proposal?


  c.. Under the Task Force proposal, what additional responsibilities and
costs would the parties involved bear, and are they reasonable?


  d.. Is the Task Force proposal responsive to all of your constituencies
concerns regarding transfers


  e.. How would the Task Force's proposal affect EPP vs. non-EPP registries?
Large vs. smaller Registrars?


  f.. 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 names?


  g.. 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 Force's approach?


  h.. 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?


  i.. 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?


  j.. 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 concern?


  k.. 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?


  l.. 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)?



----- End forwarded message -----

--
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html