RE: [transfers-wg] Unofficial 6/13 Notes

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross, sorry I missed the call today. meant to let you know i would be
traveling. I do have a couple of issues that we might consider
including if you and the rest agree:

1. given the new partial bulk transfer registry service approved for
.biz, should we include that concept as a modification to consider?
Otherwise I am concerned that each registry will have some flavor of it
instead of a consistent policy across the board - which would be better
for registrants.

2. the bulk transfer fo registerfly names to go daddy has raised an
issue that needs clarification. we have assumed that the 60-day
transfer rule applies to bulk transfers. however, not everyone agrees
on that. that should be clarified in the policy as well.


Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [transfers-wg] Unofficial 6/13 Notes
> From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, June 13, 2007 2:59 pm
> To: transfers-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Here are my unofficial notes from the 6/13 call. If I've missed or 
> misrepresented something, please let me know. Thank you to everyone that 
> participated.
> 
> Participants:
> 
> Olof Nordling
> Karen Lentz
> Margie Milam
> Barbara Steele (from the beach)
> Ross Rader
> 
> 1. Last call for comments on issues 30-38.  No comments
> 
> 2. Last call for comments on Draft-Transfer-Advisor and
> DenialClarifications.
> 
> Definition of "Registrar Hold"
> Margie - is there a definition of "registrar hold", Karen - no, but we 
> can add one. Barbara - we should use the list of domain statuses from 
> the EPP protocol.
> 
> Purpose of advisory
> Margie - what is the purpose of the advisory?
> Karen - published by ICANN, posted on the website, sent specifically to 
> registrars. Is basically reminders and clarifications of the policy from 
> the perspective of staff.
> 
> Definition of "Transfer"
> Margie - is it possible to clarify the meaning of transfer in terms of 
> this policy? Karen - possibly yes, but might require policy development. 
> Ross: wasn't the earlier policy clear on this point? i.e. all policy 
> recommendations were made in the context of being related to 
> "Inter-registrar Transfers" as per the title of the document, etc.
> 
> 3. Review of registry and other constituency feedback.
> Registry Constituency Feedback
> Barbara - rryc feedback: change of registrant close to change of 
> registrar is problematic. History of whois data would be useful (chain 
> of title). A lot of the problems will need to be addressed and supported 
> by Registrars. Registries will be involved, but the registrars always 
> sit at the front end.
> 
> General Community Feedback
> Karen - one additional issue has been raised in connection with the 
> discussion of the registerfly incident from Twomey's questions: i.e. 
> should registrants be able to retrieve auth codes from third parties 
> other than their registrar?
> 
> Discussion: This is a good idea at a high level, but further work is 
> required to figure out what the specifics would be. This is definitely 
> an area that new policy would be required to implement. #39.
> 
> 4. Discussion of suggestions for incorporating EPP experiences in Final
> Report
> Barbara - not aware of any EPP specific issues, Ross: Concur. Margie - 
> registrars should clarify to their customers how auth-codes are 
> obtained. Discussion: There was general agreement that this be added to 
> the advisory.
> 
> 5. All other business - we had a brief discussion regarding next steps. 
> Ross will coordinate with Karen to update the working group documents 
> and draft a communication to Council. These will be distributed to the 
> working group for comments and revisions prior to official transmission 
> to the Council. The GNSO Council will determine what final steps, if 
> any, are warranted in terms of new policy development.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
> 
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> t. 416.538.5492