GNSO Council Transfer Implementation Committee Teleconference on 29 January 2003
Registrar - Bruce Tonkin
Registrar - Tim Ruiz
Registrar - Ross Rader (with Alain Hutchison)
Registrar - Donna McGehee
Registrar - Elana Broitman
Registrar - Steve Miholovich
Registry - Jeff Neuman
Transfer Task Force User Rep - Grant Forsyth
Transfer Task Force User Rep - David Safran
Bruce Tonkin asked each person on the call to summarize their comments on the Transfer Implementation Committee's draft report.
Steve Miholovich commented on section 8:
The Gaining Registrar must verify the intention of the Registrant or Administrative Contact of Record to transfer their domain name registration by requiring that the Registrant complete a valid Standardized Form of Authorization
and objected to the language "verify the intention" and stated that the registrar must verify the authorization request from a contact listed in WHOIS.
Bruce Tonkin agreed to change the language
Further comment was on section 10 where it was felt that the gaining registrar
could do nothing about the transfer.
Bruce Tonkin said that the intent was that the registrars agree amongst themselves that the losing registrar could send a message first and if there is no response, the gaining registrar is still responsible for ensuring that confirmation is obtained.
It was agreed to specify the language for recommendations 8 and 9
Tim Ruiz did not have any major issues, except that he was not in complete agreement with the middle paragraph in section 9 and saw it as a problem rather than a solution.
Jeff Neuman commented on recommendation 16
The Administrative Contact and the Registrant, as outlined in the Losing Registrar's or Registry's (where available) publicly accessible WHOIS service are the only parties that have the authority to approve or deny a transfer request to the Gaining Registrar. In all cases, the authority of the Registrant in the authoritative WHOIS service supersedes that of the Administrative Contact.
saying that if it was a choice it may play into the dispute resolution as to
who the dispute provider should look to. He further quoted the e-mail comments
made Andrew Sullivan:
(b) that the whois to be used as the source of contact data may potentially, at least, be the registry's whois (in case of a "thick" registry). As noted in the comments to no 16, (b) seems to entail that some decision needs to be made about what will be the authoritative whois in the case of disputes.
Bruce Tonkin said that in terms of identifying the registrar and the admin contact, the registrant in the authoritative WHOIS has the authority. He was aware that in a dispute resolution it must be known which is the authoritative database.
Elana Broitman asked who was the authoritative contact in the registry contract with ICANN.
There is no mention made, and Ross Rader said that it could be either.
Bruce Tonkin mentioned that this was stated in the recommendation:
. In all cases, the authority of the Registrant in the authoritative WHOIS service supersedes that of the Administrative Contact.
Bruce Tonkin undertook to incorporate the comments from the meeting
as well as those sent by e-mail in the Final Report which would be sent to the
Transfer Task Force for comment and to the GNSO Council.
Bruce Tonkin thanked everyone who had participated for their efforts and contributions to the list.
Declared that it was the last meeting of the Transfer Implementation Committee as their task had been accomplished.
The call ended at 7:25 Thursday 30 January, (Melbourne), 20:25 UTC Wednesday 29 January.
Bruce Tonkin thanked all the participants and closed the call at 21:25 UTC, EST 16:25, Melbourne, 8:25 Thursday , 30 January
|© GNSO Council