[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Follow-up from Tuesday's Call

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Team:

During yesterday's call, we agreed to continue our discussion of Issue B
on the mailing list, so this message is intended to kick-off that
thread.

>From our charter, Issue B reads:  " b) Whether additional provisions on
undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to
disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is
clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is
implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar; "

My confusion yesterday was the result of reading this very narrowly, in
that both the Registrant and the AC can approve transfers, but the
Registrant can over-rule the AC.  And some mechanism is needed to
uniformly reverse a transfer when the Registrants wishes to exercise
this veto authority.  This is the thinking behind reserving the draft
"Transfer Reverse" procedure for the Registrant's use only, which (if
adopted) would standardize registrar practices in asserting Registrant
reversal privileges.

But Michael raised some interesting points on our call yesterday, which
touches on the larger issue of "control" (don't like the word
"ownership") of a particular registration.  It could be claimed that the
AC has the power to dispose of a name, and therefore has at least
partial control over it.  

I think this touches on the dual nature of IRTP.  We need to keep in
mind that IRTP is first and foremost a means to move a registration from
one registrar to another.  In practice, though, this procedure (along
with contact updates) is also used to effect a change in control of the
name, which is necessary to support a secondary market.  I don't think
this last part is well defined in IRTP, and I agree with Michael and
others that the AC's role confuses this type of transaction.

Could the answer be as simple as establishing that the AC can transfer
the name to a new registrar, but only the Registrant can effect a change
of control (same registrar or otherwise)?  Or, does the existing policy
already state this, but there's a perception problem in the domain
investment community?  

Other thoughts?  Also, Michael please clarify any areas where I've
misunderstood or misstated your concerns from yesterday's call.


Thanks--


J.