Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy (eTRP) (Draft)

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14 Apr 2010, at 02:53, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> 
> Thanks James and team for the thoughtful work.  However I think this raises 
> more questions for me than it solves at this point:
> 
> --  Should we suggest a minimum verification protocol here?           3.4.2  
> Documentation that the PTRr has verified the identity of the pre-transfer 
> registrant, in a manner conforming to local law and practices.
> 
> --  Section 3.6, why delete the requirement to restore the NS?
> 
> --  Seems there must be a mechanism for the newly-gaining 
> Registrar/Registrant to object to the eTRP transfer-back?  What if there is 
> proof of written authorization from the prior registrant?  That situation 
> seems to unravel this entire process and make it a potentially very bad idea 
> to implement.  "Cold feet" cannot be enough to reverse a previously 
> authorized transfer 60 days later, so what mechanisms can we suggest to 
> ensure the eTRP cannot be used for that purpose?
> 
> --  Section 4.14, how would the PTRr know if litigation was pending anywhere 
> in the world?  



> 
> --  Section 4.3, "fraudulent" is a very loaded legal term, requiring proof of 
> at least five elements under US law, varying in other countries.  It can be 
> criminal and/or civil.  It ought not be proved merely by the self-serving 
> declaration of the alleged victim, so again, how do we prevent abuse of this 
> system?

We are not tied to any of the terms at present, so if you can suggest a better 
term please do.

The concept / spirit that we were trying to capture as clearly as possible was 
summed up in the term "fraud" in layman's terms.



> 
> --  Section 4.4, seems to give registrars far too much discretion, which most 
> of them I believe do not even want to have, as it can subject them to 
> liability.
> 
> So, maybe I am back to square one on this issue, what is the harm we are 
> trying to solve, how has it been documented to date, and is this really the 
> best way to mitigate it without causing a much bigger problem?
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 9:04 PM
> To: IRTP B Mailing List
> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy (eTRP) (Draft)
> 
> Team:
> 
> Attached, please find two documents:
> 
>  *  A draft of the Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy (eTRP).  This is a draft 
> recommendation for a new policy, and very much a work in progress.
> But the general structure has been developed and reviewed by various 
> stakeholders in the GNSO community.
> 
>  *  A spreadsheet capturing feedback received from Registries, Registrars, 
> and ICANN Policy & Legal teams.  Many of these items were received as 
> comments to an earlier draft, and this version (Apr 11) has been modified to 
> reflect some of the feedback received.  Other items were specifically 
> deferred for discussion by our group as a whole.
> 
> 
> I look forward to discussing these during our next call.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> J.
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845