DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 16 August 2001 - minutes

Scribe version amended v.2 (27th August 2001)

Proposed agenda and related documents: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.NCtelecon-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc        ccTLD          
Elisabeth Porteneuve  ccTLD                  
Oscar Robles Garay    ccTLD  (left at 16:17, proxy to E. Porteneuve then P. de Blanc)
Philip Sheppard       Business
Marilyn Cade          Business              
Grant Forsyth         Business
Greg Ruth             ISPCP                  
Antonio Harris        ISPCP
Tony Holmes           ISPCP  (absent apologies, proxy to T. Harris)
Erica Roberts         Registrars
Ken Stubbs            Registrars              
Paul Kane             Registrars                
Roger Cochetti        gTLD                      
Richard Tindal        gTLD                       
Cary Karp             gTLD
Caroline Chicoine     IP                           
Axel Aus der Muhlen   IP                           
Guillermo Carey       IP     (absent, apologies, proxy to C. Chicoine)
Milton Mueller        NCDNH  (left the meeting and returned at 15:42)
Youn Jung Park        NCDNH  (joined the meeting later)
Vany Martinez         NCDNH                  
Louis Touton          ICANN staff
Maca Jamin            Scribe

Quorum present at 15:05 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +2:00 during the Summer in the Northern hemisphere)

Agenda item 0: NC Chair position

P. Kane took over chairmanship for this item.

Ph. Sheppard's first term as the NC Chair was from February to July 2001 and NC had to consider this position again according to: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00664.html

P. Kane moved the following motion, seconded by E. Porteneuve to re-elect Ph. Sheppard:

Decision D1: "The NC resolves to re-elect Philip Sheppard as Chairman for a further term of six months starting from this meeting."

This motion was unanimously passed.

Ph. Sheppard chaired the rest of the teleconference.

Agenda item 1: Approval of the Agenda

Ph. Sheppard suggested adding the following items under AOB

Including these changes the agenda was unanimously approved.

Agenda item 2: Approval of summary of 29 June 2001 meeting

P. Kane moved a motion to approve the summary of 29th June, seconded by K Stubbs:

Decision D2: The Minutes of June 29th 2001 were approved by 20 votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention (A. Aus der Muhlen)

Agenda item 3: DNSO Election Timetable

Ph Sheppard opened a discussion by summarising different stages of this election process:

Ph. Sheppard proposed holding this election between August 29th and September 1st.

E. Porteneuve stated the ccTLD constituency's willingness to take the opportunity at the Montevideo meeting to meet with the candidates and therefore expressed her opposition to hold election before Montevideo.

P de Blanc was supportive of E. Porteneuve's suggestion and added that candidate running for such a position should be able to make this effort and attend the Montevideo meeting.

M. Mueller left the meeting and gave his proxy to Ph. Sheppard stating that in case of a vote he was in favour of holding the election before the Montevideo meeting

M. Cade pointed out several aspects of the problem:

Ph. Sheppard put forward the motion, seconded by E. Roberts

Decision D3: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board director prior to the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September 1st 2001.

First round of vote gave the following results:

Ten votes in favour (M. Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, M. Mueller, E. Roberts, T. Harris, T. Holmes by proxy to T Harris, G. Ruth, V. Martinez, Ph. Sheppard) ;

Nine votes against (C. Chicoine, A. aus der Muhlen, G. Carey, by proxy to C. Chicoine, Y.J. Park, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, R. Cochetti, R. Tindall, C. Karp)

One abstention (O. Robles).

The vote failed.

At 15:48 Y.J. Park had joined the meeting, (she had been untill then a listen only participant) and took part in the vote.

Due to the closeness of the result P. de Blanc requested to call the question and take a motion again.

Ph. Sheppard asked that two opinions be expressed : one in favour and one against.

P. de Blanc and M. Cade re-iterated their statements.

Second round result

Ph. Sheppard proceeded to the second round of the vote on the motion.

Decision D4: The NC will hold election of the ICANN Board director prior to the Montevideo meeting between 28th August and September 1st 2001

and the following result was obtained:

Nine votes in favour (M. Cade, G. Forsyth, K Stubbs, E. Roberts, T. Harris, T. Holmes by proxy to T Harris, G. Ruth, C. Chicoine, Ph. Sheppard)

Eight votes against (Y.J Park, V. Martinez, P. de Blanc, E. Porteneuve, O. Robles , R. Cochetti, R. Tindall, C. Karp)

Three abstentions (A. aus der Muhlen, G.Carey, by proxy to C Chicoine, M. Mueller)

This motion failed.

L. Touton confirmed the imperative of providing final results to ICANN not later than September 16th 2001, as requested by the Bylaws:


(b) Prior to October 1 of each year beginning in the year 2000, each Supporting Organization entitled to select a Director (other than an Original Director selected by the Supporting Organization under Section 2 of this Article) shall (i) make its selection according to the procedures specified by Article VI (including Articles VI-A, VI-B, and VI-C), and (ii) give the Board and the Secretary of the Corporation at least fifteen days written notice of that selection. The term of such a Director shall commence on the October 1 after the Secretary's receipt of such written notice.

Any infringement to this would imply changes of the Bylaws and so substantial delay.

The NC further discussed various possibilities and dates and it was commonly agreed to take the opportunity of most NC members being in Montevideo and start the election there.

P. de Blanc moved the motion

Decision D5: the Names Council will hold election of ICANN Board Director according to the following calendar:

September 8th first round
September 10th second round
September 13th third round
September 14th fourth round, if necessary
September 15th NC teleconference will be organised to affirm the result to be communicated to ICANN by September 16th midnight Los Angeles time.

This motion was passed with 19 votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention (M. Mueller)

Agenda item 4: Report from Budget/Search committees on secretariat services provision

4.1 Search Committee report

E. Roberts summarised the Search Committee report (annex 1) and the process of selecting candidates (eight proposals were received) for provision of secretariat services to DNSO according to transparent evaluation criteria. On its meeting on August 2nd Search committee:

Y.J Park asked about the possibility of communicating the evaluation table. E. Roberts restated that the whole evaluation process was led according to widely distributed evaluation criteria.

As far as the contract is concerned, detail is yet to be determined . M. Cade clarified that this contract will bring the usual guarantees on quality of services, business performance and means for appeal if not provided.

Ph. Sheppard proposed to vote on the following motion moved by P. de Blanc and seconded by K . Stubbs

Decision D6: Accept recommendations stated in a Search Committee report as to the recommended service suppliers and proceed with further work to prepare a contract with the chosen candidate. (The NC will approve the terms of the contract subsequently).

This motion passed with 19 votes in favour, one vote against (V. Martinez against the recommendations) and one abstention (E. Porteneuve).

Ph. Sheppard thanked E. Roberts for a valuable work she has done.

4.2 Budget Committee Report

R. Cochetti reminded that the full report was sent to the members of the NC prior to this meeting (see annex 2 ) and drew attention to the need for approval of changes in cost lines within the DNSO Budget.

The original 2001 DNSO Budget is

   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $25,500
   Web/Listserv Maintenance                      $30,000
   Language Translations                         $10,000
   Professional Services                         $12,000
   Contingency                                   $35,000
The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:
   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $10,000
   Information Management & Technical Services   $70,000
   Language Translations                          $5,000
   Professional Services                          $5,000
   Contingency                                   $22,500

There was no further request for funds required. In addition to date $8,000 had been raised by the fund-rising process, which will be matched, by another $8,000 by VeriSign.

P. de Blanc moved the following motion seconded by K. Stubbs:

Decision D7: The NC adopts the Budget Committee Report and proposes revision of the spending allocation accordingly to the Committee's recommendations.

This Motion passed with 19 votes in favour, no votes against and two abstentions (M. Mueller, Y.J Park).

Agenda item 6 & 7 : Reported problems in TLD transfers & Reported problems in lapsed TLDs renewals

Ph. Sheppard invited K. Stubbs to inform the Council on the subject and actions required.

K. Stubbs mentioned a letter sent by Registrar Constituency to Stuart Lynn (see annex 3) on existing transfer policy and the restrictions that appear in these areas causing confusion and registrant's dissatisfaction.

G. Forsyth asked about the contractual aspects of the issue (see the BC contribution sent by e-mail to the Names Council)

C. Chicoine pointed out that ICANN 's second advisory stated: ICANN's Domain Name Supporting organization has already been advised of the situation and has begun to discuss possible measures for handling expiring names and queried L.Touton since she unaware of any such formal measures.

L. Touton stressed that this reflects typically a bottom-up approach: subject launched by the constituency and spreading for larger input.

Ph. Sheppard suggested the registry-registrar dialogue be carried on and brought up in Montevideo.

K. Stubbs informed that the Registrar Constituency will review a document and does welcome input from other parties and promised on C. Chicoine's request, to provide URL containing all useful information.

R. Tindall informed that Registry Constituency has a task force on a subject.

The NC agreed to seek further briefing by Constituencies and further discussion in Montevideo.

Agenda item 8: Montevideo agenda

Ph. Sheppard asked the Council to provide ideas to be put forward to the Intake Committee for finalising the Montevideo Agenda. The topics should enable putting forward DNSO views during the ICANN Public Forum Session and enable plans for the future action.

M. Cade proposed discussion on the At-Large Study report.

M. Mueller suggested discussing ccSO. C. Chicoine thought the subject needed to be dealt with separately.

Ph. Sheppard inquired about the ccTLD invitation to the NC to attend their meeting in Montevideo and the conflicting time with other Constituencies' meetings. To remedy this situation P. de Blanc invited the Council members to mail him their time availability and he will try to make necessary arrangements as ccTLDs are holding two-days meeting and would like to have other constituencies position on the future of the ccs.

M. Cade suggested to group several topics under common topic on re-structuring and reviewing process such as:

The Intake Committee will note the above suggestions.

Agenda item 9: Updates on business plan task forces

Agenda item 10: A.O.B.

10.1 ICANN TLD Evaluation Group

L. Touton informed the Council that this group comprises nine members: six representatives coming from the DNSO, together with IETF, GAC and PSO representatives. S. Lynn, ICANN CEO is chairman. Initial report is expected for the Montevideo meeting. The purpose of this group is to design a process for evaluating the new TLDs.

10.2 Recompense for B. Fausset's recording services.

K. Stubbs recalled that B. Fausset is now providing MPEG recordings of NC teleconferences. He proposed that all costs incurred by this activity be reimbursed to B. Fausset. Ph. Sheppard said that his understanding was that the issue of voluntary services and recompense had already been referred to the Budget Committee.

C. Chicoine raised the question on 'conflict of interests' and the NC role concerning this. Ph. Sheppard said that disclosure was the key.

M. Cade agreed adding that the nature of ICANN is that people participating are those with vested interests.

K. Stubbs inquired why there is no representative from the Registrar Constituency on the ICANN new TLD Evaluation Group. Ph. Sheppard responded that he has received no response from the Registrars Constituency even though at least three requests had been sent.


Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked R. Tindall and NeuStar for sponsoring the call.

17:15 end of call.

Next NC meeting will be held on 8 September 2001, in Montevideo, Uruguay.

Annex 1

16 August 2001, Search Sub-Committee report by Erica Roberts http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.Search-RFP-DNSO-report.html





  1. Search Committee Task:

    • To undertake an objective selection process for an entity or entities to provide DNSO Secretariat information and technical services on a contractual basis. (Similar such services are currently being provided by Elisabeth Porteneuve and AFNIC under legacy arrangements).

  2. Search Committee Membership:

    • A sub-committee of the NC Budget Committee;
    • Members: Erica Roberts (Chair), Chuck Gomes, Vany Martinez, Elisabeth Porteneuve. Phillip Shepard joined the committee at the beginning of the evaluation process.

  3. Consultant

    The Domain Name Supporting Organisation of ICANN Search Committee engaged Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd on 24 May 2001 to manage a Request for Proposal process to engage a Information and Technical Services Manager and optionally Internet Services Provision.

    The task, as outlined in the agreement was to manage a request for proposal process (RFP) for DNSO, including

    • Activation of the bid process
    • Preparation of documents
    • Preparation of evaluation criteria
    • Handling of information requests
    • Evaluation of submitted documents
    • Preparation of a short list
    • Final report to DNSO NC
    • Any recommendations for contractual conditions, further actions, etc arising from the process.
    • A consultant (Ian Peter and Associates) was identified and appointed in late May to manage the RFP selection and evaluation process.

  4. Processes

    The requirements of DNSO were primarily determined by the Search Committee before the Consultant was engaged, as were the Selection Criteria for successful applicants. These were refined and clarified by the Search Committee with the Consultant, and a document outlining the RFP requirements was posted on the DNSO web site on 5 June 2001. At the same time Chairs of all DNSO constituencies were requested to inform their members and other interested parties that the process was underway. It was also announced at the Stockholm meeting of DNSO NC (June 3).

    It was agreed before the process began that it was mandatory for respondents to offer Section A, and that Section B was an option at this stage which DNSO NC may or may not pursue.

    At the close of the evaluation period (extended to 23 June 2001) eight complete responses had been received.

    Five of the eight respondents (Z,Y,W, V, and T) responded to Part A only. Three respondents (S, R, and Q) responded to both sections.

  5. Evaluation

    First Round Evaluation: was conducted by the consultant and resulted in an initial shortlist of five applicants..

    Second Round Evaluation:

    • Conducted during a teleconference including the consultant and the Search Committee
    • A shortlist of three applicants was agreed. :
    • Of the three applicants short listed, one offered Part A services, the other two offered both Part A and Part B services.
    • The fees charged by all three were comparable for the services offered.

    (Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to attend teleconf))

    Third Round Evaluation:

    • Conducted by Interview Committee comprising Philip Shepard and Chuck Gomes. (Elisabeth and Erica withdrew from the evaluation process on the ground of potential conflict of interests.)
    • Proposals from shortlisted applicant were forwarded to the Interview Committee.
    • Interview Committee reported that:
      • All three shortlisted applicants could be expected to do a good job;
      • Lodger Inc recommended for appointment subject to their agreement to contract terms.


  6. Search Committee Meeting 2 Aug 2001.
  7. Apology received from Vany providing late advice she was unable to attend teleconf. Committee members present:

    In discussion following the last meeting of the Search Committee, Vany has requested that it be noted that she does not support the recommendation of the Interview Committee to appoint Loder Inc.



Erica Roberts

Chair, Search Committee

16 August 2001


Annex 2

8 August 2001, Budget Committee report by Roger Cochetti http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010808.NCbudget-report.html


8 August 2001

The Names Council Budget Committee met twice since that last Council meeting and addressed three important topics:

    1) The status of dues payments by Constituencies pursuant to the new procedures adopted by the Council for failures to pay; and

    2) The status and outlook of the campaign to generate voluntary donations to the DNSO; and

    3) Revisions to the spending allocations under the DNSO's 2001 budget.

A brief report on each follows.



In an effort to improve the payment of DNSO mandatory dues by Constituencies, on the Committee's recommendation, the Council adopted the following procedures earlier this year:


(Published at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCbudget-report.html)

Regarding the procedures of the Budget Committee, the Committee decided that its meetings should not be routinely open, but rather should be open to members of the Committee and any member of the Names Council who would like to observe. The Committee reached this conclusion because:

(1) it often discusses financially sensitive information; (2) members felt that the work of the Committee would benefit greatly by an atmosphere in which innovative ideas could be floated; and most importantly, (3) all of the Committee's reports to the Council and actions by the Council are publicly accessible.

Regarding procedures to address the failure of DNSO Constituencies to pay their assessed dues, the Committee discussed this matter during three different meetings and in its January meeting agreed to propose to the Council the following procedures:

From the date that invoices are mailed/e-mailed to representatives of Constituencies, if payment is not received by the DNSO or its agent by:

** 30 days, the Constituency is sent a reminder letter and another invoice

** 60 days, the Constituency is sent a delinquency notice and the delinquency notice is posted on the DNSO Website

** 90 days, the Constituency is sent a "show cause notice" (in which they are asked to show cause as to why their voting rights in the Names Council should not be suspended) and they are charged a 5% late payment fee to cover the cost to the DNSO of the cost of money. The 5% penalty is added to that Constituency's dues for the next (not the current) DNSO budget year.

** 120 days, the Constituency is sent a "final notice to pay" and charged an additional 5% late payment fee, which is also due as a added payment for their next year's DNSO dues

** 180 days, the voting rights, but not the right to participate, of that Constituency's representatives to the Names Council are suspended until such time as the DNSO or its agent receives all past due amounts including the varies late payment fees.

On July 11th, ICANN management reported the following status of dues payments by DNSO Constituencies for 2000 and 2001 (The DNSO operates on a January-to-January, calendar year. So, 1st Call refers to 1999, 2nd Call to 2000, and 3rd Call to 2001):

(Published at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.ICANN-DNSO-budget.html)

   Amounts in US$.
                             1st Call    2nd Call  3d Call    Total Recd
   Business Constitutency   $5,000.00  $13,642.86       $0.00  $18,642.86
   ccTLD Constituency       $5,000.00   $1,292.59       $0.00   $6,292.59
   gTLD Constituency        $5,000.00  $13,642.86  $15,371.00  $34,013.86
   IP Constituency          $5,000.00  $13,642.86  $15,371.00  $34,013.86
   ISP Constituency         $5,000.00       $0.00       $0.00   $5,000.00
   NCDNHC                   $5,000.00       $0.00      $50.00   $5,050.00
   Registrars Constituency  $5,000.00  $13,642.86  $16,857.14  $35,500.00
   Total Paid              $35,000.00  $55,864.03  $47,649.14 $138,513.17
   Total Called For        $35,000.00  $95,500.00 $107,597.00
   Other Donations            $9,050.00
   Constituency Donations   $138,513.17
   Total Donations          $147,563.17
   Earned Interest &
      (Bank Charges)          $1,487.46
   Disbursements            $(14,008.16)
   Total Funds on Hand      $135,042.47

In addition, ICANN management reported that invoices for all DNSO Constituencies, except the Non-Commercial Constituency, had been sent out on April 18, 2001. (The NCDNHC invoices is being sent out by ICANN management this week.) According to this report, three Constituencies ( ccTLDs, ISPs, and NC) have failed to pays their dues from 2001 and the same three Constituencies, along with one more (Business Constituency) have failed to pay their deus for 2001.

Importantly, the Committee took note of the fact that since the 2001 invoices were sent out on April 18th, the DNSO had failed to send out to Constituencies 30, 60, or 90 day notices as provided in the procedures (There was some confusion with ICANN management on this matter, which resulted in the failure by the DNSO to act.)

Under these circumstances the Committee addressed two questions: (1) Did the Council intend that arrearages resulting from Constituencies failure to pay dues that were invoiced during 2000 would trigger the new procedures (or do the new procedures only apply to dues invoiced in 2001 and later/). On this question, the Committee concluded that the new procedures do not apply to invoices prior to 2001; and (2) Does the failure by four Constituencies to pay their 2001 dues trigger any of the actions envision in the new plan notwithstanding that the DNSO failed to provide the follow-up notices that were contemplated under the plan. On this question, the Committee concluded that since the DNSO had failed to provide 30, 60, and 90 day notices as contemplated under the plan, then Constituencies that were invoiced on April 18, 2001 should not be held liable under the terms of plan. Accordingly, the Committee decided to have the 30 day notices sent out as soon as possible by ICANN management and recognized that the 60, 90, 120, and 180 day penalties would kick in over 30 day increments after the 30 day notices were actually sent.



The Committee discussed the state of the current campaign to generate voluntary donations to the DNSO. (These will be used by the DNSO to cover the costs of providing professional support for the DNSO and such donations will be matched by the VeriSign Registry on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to $100K.) Unfortunately, no donations had been recorded as of July. The Committee again encourages each Constituency to request that its members donate funds to the DNSO to permit it to operate more professionally and competently. (If each member organization of each Constituency would donate to the DNSO one tenth of the amount of money that they spend on travel/entertainment for ICANN meetings, then the Budget Committee's goal of raising $60,000 --or $120,000 after the VeriSign Registry match-would easily be met!!)

The Committee gratefully accepted four volunteers who stepped forward and agreed to serve as DNSO fundraising chairs: One will focus on donations from outside of the DNSO and three will focus on donations from members of the Constituencies. Together, they make up a new fund-raising work group of the Budget Committee.



The Committee re-examined the spending categories and allocations that were approved by the Council for the DNSO's 2001 Expense Budget and recommends several changes to the Council in light of changed circumstances. (Thus far this year, the DNSO has spent around $37,000, mostly in charges from AFNIC for the provision of technical management services) These proposed changes DO NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL DNSO SPENDING and THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF DUES. The proposed changes re-name of category and re-allocate spending among the several categories.

The original 2001 DNSO Budget is

   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $25,500
   Web/Listserv Maintenance                      $30,000
   Language Translations                         $10,000
   Professional Services                         $12,000
   Contingency                                   $35,000
The proposed DNSO 2001 Budget is:
   Administrative                                $12,000
   Telecommunications                            $18,100
   Travel                                        $10,000
   Information Management & Technical Services   $70,000
   Language Translations                          $5,000
   Professional Services                          $5,000
   Contingency                                   $22,500

Essentially, these changes re-label the category "Web/Listserv Maintenance" to Information Management & Technical Services and re-allocate an additional $40,000 to that category, with the reductions coming from Contingency, Travel, and Language Translations. The under-spending in these categories mainly reflects the fact that the increase in professional support that was envisioned for the DNSO has not occurred by mid-year.


Roger Cochetti, Chair
Names Council Budget Committee

Annex 3

16 August 2001, Registrar Statement on Transfer Problems, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.RegistrarsStatement-xfer.html

Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers

From: "Michael D. Palage" 
To: "Ken Stubbs" ; "M. STUART LYNN" ;
"Louis Touton" ; "Roger J. Cochetti" 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:18 AM
Subject: Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers

Dear Ken:

Attached please find the Registrar Constituency Statement regarding domain name transfers. I have been advised that the DNSO Names Counsil has set aside some time in its agenda for this topic. At this time the Registrar Constituency would just like to submit this letter which it believes more accurately addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the Registrar Constituency. The Registrar Constituency is actively engaged in resolving this issue internally. However, if it cannot be resolve in the next couple of weeks, the Registrar Constituency will be submitting proposed solutions to the Names Counsil in Montevideo.

Please note that Register.com, NSI Registrar and NameSecure expressed stated their non-support of this letter.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
Registrar Constituency Chairperson

16 August 2001, Registrar Letter to Stuart Lynn, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010816.RegistrarsLetter-xfer-2.7.html

Letter from Registrars Constituency to Stuart Lynn


August 16, 2001

Mr. Stuart Lynn
President and Chief Executive Officer
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA

Dear Stuart;

The Registrar Constituency respectfully submits this letter to express its concerns regarding recent correspondence that Mr. Roger Cochetti, Senior Vice President of Policy at VeriSign, submitted to you. The Registrar Constituency (Constituency) believes that these letters do not accurately convey the underlying issues facing the constituency involving transfers. Additionally, the approach that VeriSign is implementing attempts to circumvent the bottom-up effort to develop consensus solutions to these problems that the Constituency has been engaged in to date.

Existing Transfer Policy

The existing transfer process is documented in Exhibit B (Policy on Transfer of Sponsorship of Registrations Between Registrars) of the ICANN Registry/Registrar License and Agreement.

The key elements of this process are as follows:

For each instance where a domain name holder wants to change its Registrar for an existing domain name (i.e., a domain name that appears in a particular top-level domain zone file), the gaining Registrar shall:

Obtain express authorization from an individual who has the apparent authority to legally bind the SLD holder (as reflected in the database of the losing Registrar).

a) The form of the authorization is at the discretion of each gaining Registrar.
b) The gaining Registrar shall retain a record of reliable evidence of the authorization.

Request, by the transmission of a "transfer" command as specified in the Registry Registrar Protocol, that the Registry database be changed to reflect the new Registrar.

a) Transmission of a "transfer" command constitutes a representation on the part of the gaining Registrar that:

(1) the requisite authorization has been obtained from the domain name holder listed in the database of the losing Registrar, and
(2) the losing Registrar will be provided with a copy of the authorization if and when requested.

In those instances when the Registrar of record denies the requested change of Registrar, the Registrar of record shall notify the prospective gaining Registrar that the request was denied and the reason for the denial.

Instances when the requested change of sponsoring Registrar may be denied include, but are not limited to:

1) Situations described in the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
2) A pending bankruptcy of the domain name Holder
3) Dispute over the identity of the domain name Holder
4) Request to transfer sponsorship occurs within the first 60 days after the initial registration with the Registrar

In all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice regarding the "transfer" request within five (5) days. Failure to respond will result in a default "approval" of the "transfer."

Upon receipt of the "transfer" command from the gaining Registrar, the Registry will transmit an e-mail notification to both Registrars.

The Registry shall complete the "transfer" if either:

1) the losing Registrar expressly "approves" the request, or
2) the Registry does not receive a response from the losing Registrar within five (5) days.

When the Registry's database has been updated to reflect the change to the gaining Registrar, the Registry will transmit an email notification to both Registrars.



A small number of registrars, representing a very large portion of the total market, have recently adopted procedures to require domain name registrants to explicitly acknowledge to the losing registrar that the registrant has authorized a transfer request. These changes are restricting the ability of a gaining registrar to transfer the domain at the request of the registrant.

More specifically, the procedures employed by the small number of registrars in question are as follows:

Following the email from the registry to a losing registrar seeking confirmation of a domain name transfer initiated by the gaining registrar, the losing registrars are contacting the domain name holder directly to seek confirmation within the 5 day window set by the registry. If the domain name holder DOES NOT RESPOND, the losing registrar is denying the transfer on the grounds that there is a dispute over the identity of the domain name holder. This is a deviation from the spirit of the existing policy (note the registry assumes approval if the losing registrar does not respond within 5 days, and so it would be reasonable if the losing registrar assumed approval if the domain name holder does not respond within 5 days).

The emails sent by the registrars who are changing the procedures, are generally confusing to the domain name holder (and in some cases in the wrong language), and it is typical for the domain name holder not to respond. The domain name holders assume that the transfer will go ahead as they have explicitly approved that action to the gaining registrar, or the domain name holder has simply not had time to read and respond to the email.

Registrar’s Efforts to Date

This transfer issue first emerged on the Registrar Constituency’s agenda at the Stockholm meeting in June. Because of the significant impact that this issue was having on most operational registrars, an emergency meeting was called on Sunday to further discuss the issue.

During this meeting by a vote of 23 to 2, the registrars in attendance expressed their strong desire to adopt a procedure that would automatically acknowledge a transfer when a registrant failed to respond to a losing registrars inquiry (autoACK). Although most registrars acknowledged an ambiguity in the current language, it was believed that relying on the status quo was the most prudent course of action until a more thorough analysis of the problem could be undertaken. The registrars agreed to work on solutions as a follow up to Stockholm.

Following the Stockholm meeting, there was a follow-up teleconference for the benefit of those registrars that were unable to attend the Stockholm meeting. This meeting further reinforced the consensus that had been forged in Stockholm. In an attempt to resolve this matter internally, those registrars advocating an autoNACK policy engaged in consultations among themselves and with other registrars in an attempt to seek a compromise position.

During these negotiations a straw poll was conducted among the Constituency to further define the issues. This vote reaffirmed for the third time the strong support within the Constituency for an autoACK policy. Although the straw poll supported moving this issue forward to the Names Council for discussion and suggested resolution, it was decided that those registrars supporting the autoNACK policy would be given additional time to resolve this matter

On June 29th, one of the registrars that had been advocating an autoNACK policy, submitted to the Registrar list a proposed compromise. Although there was some concern regarding the potential implementation of this solution voiced by certain registrars, the attempt to proactively engage in dialog with the Constituency was true to the ICANN bottom-up consensus building effort.

On July 13th, Paul Kane, a Registrar Constituency Names Council representative posted an email to the Constituency list inquiring about VeriSign’s much anticipated document so that the Constituency could engage in further consensus building efforts. Regrettably, rather than responding to this request from the Registrars, on July 16th, VeriSign instead submitted its first letter directly to ICANN. Only after public inquiries to the Constituency list did a VeriSign representative provide any further explanation to the Registrars.

A Registrar meeting was held on July 23, 2001 to discuss the options.

The Constituency is concerned that VeriSign sought to go directly to ICANN on this issue, ignoring the bottom-up consensus building efforts that had been engaged in for several weeks. Moreover, there is an important issue that Mr. Cochetti did not make clear in his July 16th letter, that is significant.

During both Constituency meetings in Stockholm, Dan Halloran, ICANN Registrar Liaison, stated that he was not aware of any complaints that ICANN had received about domain name slamming. Mr. Halloran latter qualified this statement in an email to the Registrar Constituency stating, that ICANN has received reports of unauthorized transfers but that they were usually associated with domain name "hijacking" (an issue that the Registrar Constituency takes seriously and has addressed in the past). Additionally, Mr. Halloran also indicated that he had been informed of one other registrar that had raised concerns about transfers deceptively initiated by resellers or registrars without the registrant's informed consent. The Registrar Constituency has requested that ICANN provide the constituency with any and all information they have on this subject, and looks forward to working with ICANN staff in resolving this matter.

The Registrar Constituency would like to thank VeriSign for making public its previously private survey on July 26th.

Clarification From ICANN

The Constituency universally agrees that protecting a registrant’s’ interests is paramount; unfortunately there is a disagreement on how to best achieve this end result. We are seeking clarification from ICANN: what are our options in addressing this situation. If ICANN deems this to be a policy change, we assume that it would require DNSO approval and that we should bring it before the DNSO. If ICANN believes this to be a procedural interpretation of existing ICANN Policy, we assume that the Constituency can implement their preferred solution, without full DNSO review. In any case, the Registrar Constituency would look to ICANN staff for support in enforcement of any solution arrived at by the parties.

As time is of the essence, the Registrar Constituency would like to move forward down one of the above two paths within the next couple of weeks. If the Constituency does not receive guidance from ICANN on this issue during this time, the Constituency will advise its Names Council representatives to bring proposed solutions to this issue before the full Names Council for consideration and action in Montevideo.


The Constituency is clearly concerned that certain registrars are employing new and onerous transfer policies that create confusion and registrant burdens and dissatisfaction. Further frustrating to the Constituency is that this argument ignores the very fact that this radical departure from adopted policy and procedure has created the very consumer confusion that they claim to be protecting against. The Constituency eagerly awaits guidance from ICANN on how to proceed in implementing its consensus-based solution, and, if necessary, stands willing to participate with the other DNSO constituencies in resolving this problem.

Best regards,


Michael Palage,
Registrar Constituency Chairperson


Cc: Louis Touton
ICANN DNSO Names Council
Rodger Cochetti

Information from:
© DNSO Names Council