ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-D -- tentative use-cases that we've identified

  • To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-D -- tentative use-cases that we've identified
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:03:57 -0600

hi all,

one of the actions i took out of today’s call was to push along the list of 
use-cases that the IRTP-D gang has come up with.  these are still under 
revision, so don’t treat them as final.  but they give a sense of what we’re 


WG Scenarios

A Registrar is not authorizing a transfer-out, or is not providing an auth-info 
code in a timely way

A Registrar is not participating in resolving an issue with a transfer.  
Several attempts to engage have been made by the other Registrar, including a 
message the Emergency Action  Contact, to no avail.

+- Registrar not unlocking a name

or allowing the registrant to unlock the domain themselves
Where the FOA's are not sent to the two transfer contacts

The Administrative Contact authorises a transfer but the Registrant is 
challenging that

When auth-code is sent to wrong whois contact, to the account holder that 
sometimes is not listed in the whois

Two registrants are disputing the right to a domain name after an 
inter-reigistrar transfer --  registrars went through the right process and 
have no further information to add.

Both registrants were acknowledged at some point in time as being registrants.  
Both of their names have appeared in Whois, but they now disagree as to who the 
true registrant is.

+- Administrative and Registrant contacts are spread across two parts of an 
organization and there's a disagreement between them as to the validity of a 

Different contacts or departments within an organization have conflicts
+- A registrant-claimant approaches a Registrar claiming that they are the 
registrant rather than the Proxy Service Provider to whom the domain name is 

Maybe refer this edge case to the PPS WG?
Proxy is acting as an agent
Maybe a subset of the "confusion of roles within an organization" case
+- One registrant is completely unknown to the registrars

A website designer registers a domain under their name on behalf of a customer 
for whom they build a website.  They are challenged by their customer who 
claims to be the registrant but has never appeared in any Whois record at any 

A website designer registers a domain under their name on behalf of a customer, 
and then goes out of business - causing domain to expire, leaving registrants 
to resolve the issue with a registrar who has never heard of them.

+- Registrant says "I'm the owner, but I'm not in control of the name, here's 
why, help me get it back"

Two business partners split and claim rights on the domain name
Contract disputes sometimes enter into this
Company goes through an ownership/structure change -- the original owner tries 
to retain the name
+- Privacy services -- losing registrar doesn't remove privacy service, the 
gaining registrar can't validate the identity of the person registering the name

This is also the case for any other entity that's providing the privacy service 
-- resellers or other 3rd parties for example

+- Somebody registers a domain name as part of their job, does it under their 
own personal account, they and company part ways, which trumps?

There is a spectrum here -- size of organization
Major manufacturer - clearer case
Small company (just a few people) - slides into the personal/contract dispute
Person works at the company -- maybe in the corporate account -- their contact 
info is listed -- they have left the company and access to the account and 
controlling email address is no longer possible

+- A claim is made -- but it is not clear at the outset that this is a private 
party dispute -- it looks like a transfer problem at the beginning -- it's only 
through working through the Registrars that the truth will out.

It's not always clear at the outset that a given complaint is valid under the 

Once the complainant has provided details, it is then possible to determine 

Understanding changes during the course of the dispute process -- some prove 
valid, some are discovered  to be invalid 

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy