RE: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft notes from conference call 30 January

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Regarding 15, there is an *and/or* in it:

Whether requirements should be in place for Registrars of Record to send
an FOA, and/or receive the FOA back from Transfer Contact before acking
a transfer.

And the first part, before the and/or, was actually suggested in the
SSAC's report on DN Hijacking. Just wanted to be sure that was
understood before dismissing it. 

But my bigger concern is the idea that 5 and 6 are related just because
6 used locked domains as an example. Denying a transfer because it is
locked is only one reason a transfer may be denied. 

I think 6 is pretty much a no brainer. An FOA should not last
indefinately. But 5 may be a bigger can of worms than you might think,
in fact I know it will be. It would be a shame to leave relatively low
hanging fruit like 6 because of the quagmire that 5 will cause.
 

Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-trans-wg] Transfer Issues - Draft notes from conference
call 30 January
From: "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, January 30, 2008 11:16 am
To: <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>


Dear all,
Please find very brief draft notes from our call today below.
Comments & rectifications welcome, of course.

Also, please note that a new call is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday
6
February at 15.00 UTC. Please indicate your availability for that call
to
the list.

Best regards

Olof

------------------- 

Transfer Issues - Call 30 January 2008

Participants: Tom Keller (group leader), Chuck Gomez, Mike O'Connor,
Glen de
Saint Géry, Olof Nordling

The task is to propose framing of future potential PDPs to the GNSO
Council,
using the prioritized list of 19 issues. It was agreed to proceed based
on
Tom's mail suggesting three issue groups, with Chuck's added comments.
The
issues can be screened from a perspective of feasibility, retaining
those
issues for which reasonable progress can be achieved in a PDP. 

First issue group: "Enhancements to the current operational rules of the
transfer policy". Comments/conclusions by issue (as numbered in Tom's
mail):

1. Has a bearing on Whois and privacy issues, thus controversial, and
it's
complex to find a solution for this issue outside the Whois. Conclusion:
to
keep 1 separate as a potential PDP on its own.

5. and 6. These are related and both are feasible, although 6 could
possibly
merit rephrasing. Conclusion: to keep both 5 and 6 in the first group.

7. and 2. (in the second group). Both are related and have feasible
"technical" aspects but also much more difficult "policy" aspects,
deserving
thorough investigation and separate handling. Conclusion: to combine the
"technical" aspects of 7 and 2 and keep them in the first group, while
combining the "policy" aspects of both as a separate potential PDP.

15. Assessed as contrary to existing policy and as reopening past
discussion. Conclusion: to eliminate 15.

18. Largely achieved, at least in theory, and assessed as easily
achievable
in practice. Conclusion: to keep 18 in the first group.

A new call was suggested to take place on Wednesday 6 February at 15.00
UTC.
Participants were invited to respond to the list about their
availability.