Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Follow-up from Implementation Review Team Call

[Theo Geurts <theo.geurts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A few quick comments. 

3.2(a) is the part where the registrar gets consent and i assume the non 
consent if that is the case ? 

Regarding the notifications mentioned in 3.2(b) 
(iii) If consent was given in 3.2(a), then (iii) might throw a wrench into the 
process when the new registrant has not entered into agreement and forgets or 
refuses. The text in (i) sets a 24 hours window. And in my opinion this adds a 
layer of complexity. 

Same goes for (iv) and (v) and (vi). These shouldn't be in all cases part of a 
notification process. To ensure flexibillity i would suggest to rewrite 3.2 
completly and make them a directive. Then a Registrar can determine based on 
it's business model and operational implementation to decide what goes where 
during the change of registrant process. 

To be clear, I am not suggesting the notifications should not be removed and or 
any of the above sections. It should part of a directive. And perhaps directive 
is the wrong word/term here, I am simply trying to find some balance here and I 
am aware this also affects parts of 3.1. 

As this was section was removed :" The Registrar should not provide the Change 
of Registrant Credential to the Account Holder unless the Account Holder and 
Prior Registrant are the same. In the event the Prior Registrant can no longer 
access its email address, phone number or address, the Registrar would not be 
limited to use of contact information on file in providing the Change of 
Registrant Credential". 

The reason for removing it is clear to me as the credential part is now part of 
the secure mechanism definition. However what we have created here is the 
situation that under all circumstances, provided it is a material change, 
triggers the change of registrant process. So the balance we tried to achieve a 
few months ago is gone, as you can no longer login to your registrar account to 
correct an email address. So we might want to circle back on this during the 
next call. 

Regarding the issue I brought up during the last call when it comes to privacy 
protect providers and or registrars offering spam reduction solutions. A 
Designated Agent could indeed be the solution. This would be part of the terms 
and conditions set by those agents between them and the registrants, read pre 
authorise. 
We need to come up with a solution regarding the notifications as part of the 
current procedure. As I can imagine that in certain specific situations you 
want to skip the notification part as updating the email address might be part 
of an automatic procedure and will generate alot of notifications and create 
confusion. 

I think with the above and Bob's comments from the last call we have a starting 
point to explore this designated agent role more. I think the process for 
Registrars should be low profile yet accountable. If we start to define the 
role too deep we will create a can of worms here with questions like, how long 
is the pre authorisation period etc etc. I don't think we should head that 
direction. 

Best 

Theo 


Van: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx> 
Aan: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx, "Bob Mountain" <bmountain@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Verzonden: Vrijdag 10 juli 2015 00:49:11 
Onderwerp: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Follow-up from Implementation Review Team Call 

Hi, Team. 

Please save the date for our next Implementation Review Team call on Thursday, 
16 July at 1600UTC . 

For the recording of today’s call, please use the following link: 
https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5l1f520ora/ 

I have attached the draft policy that we discussed during today’s call. A few 
of you mentioned that you would like to further tweak some sections, namely the 
definition of designated agent in 1(d) of the policy and the circumstances 
described in section 2.3. Please feel free to propose any edits on the list. If 
you would like one additional week, please let me know, and we can postpone 
next week’s call by one week (Thursday, 23 July). 

Thank you, all, for your participation today — it was very helpful! 

Kind regards, 

Caitlin