Names Council: Transfers Task Force

Marilyn Cade gives a brief report about the latest discussions in the transfers task force. Points to public discussion in the late morning. Doesn’t repeat the full presentation given at that session. Transfers Task Force has had draft set of reco…

Marilyn Cade gives a brief report about the latest discussions in the transfers task force. Points to public discussion in the late morning. Doesn’t repeat the full presentation given at that session. Transfers Task Force has had draft set of recommendation reviewed, taken it further, undertaken further comment, and posted it as part of the interim report. The report is a very robust set of procedures and recommendations. Determination who has the authority to authorize a transfer and recommends a standard set of processes. Relies on authorization code given to registrant by registrar. If environment does not support auth code, then TF identifies who should be recognized as the authorized individual. Registrars have originally contributed to the drafting and took a vote. Strongly supported the use of auth codes. Automatically ACK transfer if this particular form of identification is used. Describes conditions under which a registrar legitimately can (or can’t) deny. Appeals process: Possibly involve the registry. Possibly a third-party appeals process; in either case, need cost-recovery mechanism. Recently, some registrars have submitted a letter to the task force calling attention to their concerns; support auto-nack. Contradiction to interim recommendation of TF. Useful discussion on Sunday. Registrars seem to be interested in close interaction with the task force. Interact further with registrars who have signed letter. Critical that support or rejection is documented. Be specific about concerns. In-line changes or other recommendations welcome. Reasoned opposition in policy definition! At forum, also support from several registrars in the audience which would like to have further conversation with TF in Shanghai.

Discussion. Cochetti: gTLDs have commented earlier. Reiterate earlier, but important, comments. Most important commodity of the council is credibility. When council acts arbitrarily or oversteps competences, credibility is undermined. Credibility most important thing NC can offer. gTLDs have pointed out that, whereas NC is to coordinate policy and has to operate at policy level, TF has addressed a large number of questions whcih go beyond the policy level. Touton has been helping in documenting 20 specific recommendations that task force has put forward in latest draft. Fairly detailed recommendations from transfers task force. Impossible to conclude that these are all policy. This is irrelevant to whether the recommendations are good or bad. Issue is competency of names council. Task Force working outside its proper scope by putting forward recommendations which are beyond NC’s mandate and policy authority. Reiterating previous comments. Bruce Tonkin asks for examples of policy recommendations and things which shouldn’t be policy recommendations. Cochetti: Detailed timelines are details, not policiess (3 days vs. 5 days vs. 1 day). Would be happy to ask constituency to identify recommendations which sink below policy level and are about administrative detail. Tonkin: Problem in current agreements is vagueness of implementation or limits. Should ICANN staff work on detail? Details must be somewhere. Cochetti: Yes, detail is matgter of negotiation between registry or registrar involved and icann management. Tonkin: So policy is that there needs to be a time limit, and details are to be done by negotiation. Cochetti: Principle is correct. Address policy, not administrative details. This report provides very specific details. Touton note says as much as that this requires massive renegotiation of contracts. Tonkin: Separate policy recommendations from just advice (also applies to whois). J. Scott Evans: These are just possible recommendations to spur additional discussion. General Counsel does not make indication that renegotiations are required. Registries and registrars said that, Touton reacted to this. One of the challenges for the task force: Find a solution, whether broad principle or minutia. Problems are there because therea re those that are participating in the system, that are gaming the system to the disadvantage of those players that wish to play by the business practices that we would all endorse openly. Frustrating the user because they feel like they’re being taken advantage of. Sometimes, level of detail is because when you have vague policies, gaming continues to occur. Broad set of principles don’t solve solution. […] Philip Sheppard: Process should be that comments should be made in writing to the Task Force. Process going on for some time. […] Where should detail which are the essence of solving the problem be sorted out? Negotiate with every registrar or sort out centrally? Practicality: Centralize. Chun: Urgency of this kind of policy is clear to all. … Specific concern about languages. Point has already been raised by Michael Palage in earlier session. Very significant for users in asia-pacific region. Confirmation process of registrar for transfer is being only done in English. Confuse non-English speakers. Don’t know how to reflect this concern. Not just a notification issue, but also relevant to appeal and dispute resolution process. [Missing some minutes; Jordyn Buchanan speaking.] Authinfo has already changed significantly where it’s implemented: Registrants were supposed to select it themselves. Today, registrars generate it. Think about this as guidelines as opposed to requirements. Adopting guidelines provide registries with possibility to enforcde contracts with registrars, as opposed to vague language that exists now. Good starting point. [Grand Forsythe on the phone, hardly understandable; missing some other discussion.] Cochetti on uniform administrative practices: Not the competence of the Names Council. NC can’t wish the competence to do anything else than policy. Highest level of things. Policy would not be determined in negotiation between ICANN mgmt and registrars/registries; that’s administrative practice. Forsythe: Have suggested consistency where it’s beneficial, have let open other things. Doing this because transfers is a real problem, with relations to consumer protection etc. Quite agrees that there are many administrative practices that are not appropriate at policy level. […] Marilyn Cade: […] Benefit of contribution of two members of registry constituency. Terrific asset to TF. Document has been published for some time and has gone through 50 iterations. Killed a lot of trees. Sunday: Heared detailed expressions of significant rconcern about delay and that failing to address the problem is causing damage to businesses and customers. Registrants angry. Indicative of need to take this seriously. […] Please submit written comments. Make this a priority. Roger indicated that he speaks for gTLD registry constituency. Jordyn gave slightly different perspective. TF welcomes knowing whether someone talks on behalf of constituency or just as an individual, with perspective from constituency. J. Scott Evans: Incumbent to note in the public record that simply because there are representatives from certain constituencies on task forces that look at issues, that should in no way inhibit or discourage members of constituencies or constituencies as a whole coming forward with critiques or criticisms or disagreements with any task force report, because wehen you serve, you are doing your best to craft a document that you’re not sure whether, despite your group’s disagreement, would still be accepted. Marilyn: Need comments in writing. Ellen Shankman joins via phone. Jordyn: registry constituency has taken position that contributors do their best. No specific instruction. Work result must be sent to constituency as a whole. Cochetti: Language may be confusing; illustrations instead of mandatory policies. Useful. The fact that NC is limited to coordinating policy doesn’t mean practice is important. But can’t change responsibility or mandate by wishful thinkinking. Policy level. J. Scott Evans: Don’t agree that having time period set for action within a policy is an administrative detail. Example: Redemption Grace Period. False distinction in order to not have to adhere to requirements of policy. Registrants want clearly-defined solution with teeth that clearly tells participants what their responsibilities are. Bruce: From policy perspective, transfers task force document is overly descriptive. Need sort of get the balance. Marilyn: Asked Louis to clarify for the task force’s use what it would take to implement consensus policy. Louis’ document took longer to produce than hoped. Included specific examples. But: Interim report. Out for comment. Be optimistic and take comments into account. Could have different set of recommendations based on feed-back. Suggest to invest time task forces invested: Ask Louis about the details in his memo. Task Forces need to separate what’s part of contractual procedure and what may be recommendations.