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