<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=607525614-27062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=607525614-27062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
would also like to volunteer to participate on this working
group.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=607525614-27062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=607525614-27062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Margie</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Tim Ruiz
[mailto:tim@godaddy.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:58
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Bruce Tonkin<BR><B>Cc:</B> Tina Dam; Tim Cole;
registrars@dnso.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [registrars] Request for volunteers
to determine work items for 6 month review of transfers
policy<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Bruce, I volunteer to participate on this WG.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>--------
Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [registrars] Request for volunteers to
determine work items<BR>for 6 month review of transfers policy<BR>From:
"Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><BR>Date: Sat, June
25, 2005 7:05 am<BR>To: registrars@dnso.org<BR>Cc: "Tina Dam"
<dam@icann.org>, "Tim Cole" <cole@icann.org><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>(http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm )
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>http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf
<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. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>--<BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by
AVG Anti-Virus.<BR>Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release
Date: 6/24/2005<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--<BR>
No virus found in this outgoing message.<BR>
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.<BR>
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005<BR>
</FONT> </P>