Bucharest, June 2002 Transfers Task Force Report Bucharest ICANN Meeting June 2002 Bucharest, June 2002 Task Force Members Marilyn Cade Grant Forsyth Mark McFadden Ross Rader David Safran Dan Steinberg Jamie.
Download ReportTranscript Bucharest, June 2002 Transfers Task Force Report Bucharest ICANN Meeting June 2002 Bucharest, June 2002 Task Force Members Marilyn Cade Grant Forsyth Mark McFadden Ross Rader David Safran Dan Steinberg Jamie.
Bucharest, June 2002 Transfers Task Force Report Bucharest ICANN Meeting June 2002 Bucharest, June 2002 Task Force Members Marilyn Cade Grant Forsyth Mark McFadden Ross Rader David Safran Dan Steinberg Jamie Love Peter de Blanc Sloan Gaon Elisabeth Porteneuve Christine Russo Rick Shera Nick Wood Bucharest, June 2002 Transfers: Work of the Task Force Issues began to surface in March, 2001, in the transfer of domain names between registrars, resulting in delays and/or denials and some user confusion. • Intra Constituency approach tried.. • At Montevideo ICANN meeting other constituencies noted they were affected by “transfers”. • NC created Task Force. • Registrar Constituency “Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers: Principles and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars as basis for interpreting Exhibit B.” Process is not yet implemented across all accredited Registrars. • Impact on Registrants as well as Registrars Bucharest, June 2002 It’s Complex • This is more complicated since a transfer involves serious consequences to the “holder” of the name, if there is a problem. So there is a reason to require validation of the transfer request. • Great vagueness exists in what is considered “definition” of apparent authority. • Goal of TF is to create situation such that Registrars and Registrants and intermediaries who act for them, have understanding of what is needed to establish same – consultation with ICANN Staff; • TF needs to document and take input on draft guidance, taking into account contractual agreements, role of third parties, and registrants. • The TF has also examined the role of “auth-info” as a part of a solution and will be publishing a statement which defines the role of auth-info within this process. Bucharest, June 2002 • Staff Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names Discussed. Supported by TF. Helpful. Not full solution. Other changes still needed. – Validating Understanding of the Registrant Experience with Transfers • Participants themselves bring expertise; Staff has some data from complaints; build on that to validate range of experiences [good and bad] • TF has discussed asking the emerging AT Large to support a r registrant survey to gather more illustrations and examples. STATUS: not determined. • Fast Track – Questionnaire posted; intended to be a targeted outreach in first round; Task Force to review all responses as a group to develop better understanding of experiences – to guide recommendations. Questionnaire needs major overall for relevance and ease to respond. Considering separate versions -Registrant/intermediary. • TF Discussed sending survey to selective group of ISPs who act as registrars; corporate/MIS registrar intermediaries; and registrants themselves. Methodology still under development for distribution. • Quantity is not our goal, but illustrations. Bucharest, June 2002 Other work items and time conflicts • The TF reached a point of being ready to finalize the survey instruments. • Several things happened. – Evolution and Reform process announced. – New work on WLS as of April/urgency. – Combined value of these opportunities overwhelmed the time available. People simply stopped participating due to lack of time. – Work has been delayed due to these two significant factors. – It’s not over… though……. Bucharest, June 2002 Working to revise the plan • • • • • • Revisit the survey concept-fix/finalize/post Work with At Large or other resources Draft AA was posted; very few comments received. Plan to finalize in next few weeks Address Express Authorization and its linkage Determine whether “examples” of EA are useful Bucharest, June 2002 • Timeline to be revised for Transfers • At same time, work continues to determine what situation is with deletions and incorporate related issues • Assess what has to happen in addition re deletions • Strong interest in standard deletions period/process in TF has developed (WLS report recommends) • Goal is to finish work on Transfers documents and post within next few weeks • And to establish timeline on further deletions work. Bucharest, June 2002 • Questions?