<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [registrars] Request for volunteers to determine work items for 6 month review of transfers policy</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Bruce: Count me in. Thanks. Jon<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Bruce Tonkin [<A HREF="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</A>]<BR>
Sent: Sat Jun 25 08:14:20 2005<BR>
To: registrars@dnso.org<BR>
Cc: Tina Dam; Tim Cole<BR>
Subject: [registrars] Request for volunteers to determine work items for 6 month review of transfers policy<BR>
<BR>
Hello All,<BR>
<BR>
The GNSO Council is seeking volunteers to participate in a short-term<BR>
working group to help determine what further analysis is necessary of<BR>
the implementation of the transfers policy.<BR>
<BR>
See below for a description of the working group.<BR>
<BR>
Please let me or one of the other GNSO Council reps (Tom Keller and Ross<BR>
Rader) know if you wish to participate within the next 7 days. Ross<BR>
Rader will be chairing the working group.<BR>
<BR>
Members of other constituencies are also invited to participate.<BR>
<BR>
At this stage I would expect no more than two teleconferences would be<BR>
required, and the remainder of the work carried out via a mailing list<BR>
created for the purpose.<BR>
<BR>
Note the purpose of this working group is not to propose policy changes.<BR>
That may happen as part of a future GNSO policy development process.<BR>
The purpose of this working group is to determine what further data<BR>
analysis is necessary to assist the GNSO to determine whether and what<BR>
refinements to the policy are required. Ie the working group will<BR>
advise the GNSO Council on what further data should be collected and<BR>
analysed, beyond that undertaken in the 3 month review.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Bruce Tonkin<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I Background<BR>
============<BR>
<BR>
Recommendation 28 of the Consensus Policy on Transfers:<BR>
(<A HREF="http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm">http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm</A> ) states:<BR>
(I have replaced references to the DNSO and Names Council with the new<BR>
terms)<BR>
<BR>
"That the implementation and execution of these recommendations be<BR>
monitored by the GNSO. Specifically that;<BR>
<BR>
a. ICANN Staff analyse and report to the GNSO Council at three, six and<BR>
twelve month intervals after implementation with the goal of<BR>
determining;<BR>
<BR>
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented<BR>
and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants,<BR>
<BR>
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered<BR>
by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the<BR>
implementation and monitoring stages,<BR>
<BR>
iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary<BR>
of the filings that have been resolved through the process.<BR>
<BR>
b. Pursuant to which, the GNSO Council may instruct the staff to;<BR>
<BR>
i. Continue bi-annual reviews in a manner consistent with the<BR>
aforementioned requirements, or;<BR>
<BR>
ii. Report again to the GNSO Council in an additional twelve month time<BR>
frame.<BR>
<BR>
c. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to<BR>
allow the Names Council to determine when, if ever, these<BR>
recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification<BR>
or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN<BR>
Staff."<BR>
<BR>
The ICANN staff have produced a 3 month report dated 14 April 2005,<BR>
available at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf">http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf</A><BR>
<BR>
The report is based on public comments received, statistics from<BR>
registry operator reports, and questions and complaints received by<BR>
ICANN staff.<BR>
<BR>
Note also that the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee is<BR>
preparing a report on domain name hijacking, and one of its possible<BR>
recommendations which was discussed in the ICANN meeting in Mar Del<BR>
Plata was making it mandatory for a losing registrar to send a<BR>
notification to the Registrant (this is presently optional for the<BR>
losing registrar). Note that it is still the gaining registrars<BR>
responsibility to authenticate the registrant, and receive<BR>
authorisation.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
II Working Group task<BR>
======================<BR>
<BR>
The task of the working group is to:<BR>
<BR>
(1) review the content of the report of 14 April 2005 with respect to:<BR>
<BR>
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented<BR>
and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants,<BR>
<BR>
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered<BR>
by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the<BR>
implementation and monitoring stages,<BR>
<BR>
iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary<BR>
of the filings that have been resolved through the process.<BR>
<BR>
(2) Identify the work items for the 6 month review. In particular<BR>
determine what additional information and analysis is required to assist<BR>
the GNSO in determining whether any refinements are required for the<BR>
policy. Note this analysis may include a similar process to that used<BR>
in the recent analysis of the practices of registrars with respect to<BR>
requirements of registrars to provide information on the purpose for<BR>
data collection and information on the recipients of the data. In this<BR>
analysis an ICANN staff member documented the business processes used by<BR>
the top 10 registrars, and a 10 other registrars chosen randomly.<BR>
This analysis could complement the anecdotal evidence provided from<BR>
public comments and queries received by ICANN staff.<BR>
<BR>
III Deliverable<BR>
================<BR>
<BR>
The working group should produce a report to the GNSO Council with<BR>
recommendations to the GNSO Council for work to be done by ICANN staff<BR>
in the 6 month review. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>