RE: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] ETRP

["Michael Collins" <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika and all,

 

I think that an expedited transfer reversal of a hijacked domain will rarely
lead to a dispute. Hijackers will usually shun a requirement to be
identified for purposes of the dispute. Even though I believe a dispute will
be rare, we should not create a ETRP that has no means for a dispute to be
heard.

 

I am working on text to propose. There is no reason to create a new
Registrar Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. I am studying this policy now
to try to determine how to best trigger a dispute. I may also have questions
for Barbara about whether/how a registry can lock a domain name during a
dispute if these questions are not already answered in the current policy.

 

Kevin's suggested modification may resolve my concern that a hijacking
victim cannot use a transfer dispute to reclaim a domain name if a
registrant change occurs before the inter-registrar transfer. I wait to see
it.

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

 

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:17 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] ETRP

 

Dear All,

Following the request of James, please find attached and posted on the wiki
(https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b) an updated version
of the proposed Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy. This version includes the
modification proposed to item 3.5. In addition, I would like to propose a
small modification to avoid confusion by changing the acronym from eTRP to
ETRP as a small 'e' in Europe is associated with electronic (eGovernment,
eInclusion, etc.).

Could I ask those that suggested additional modifications (Michael, Kevin)
to provide language for inclusion? Once all edits have been provided and
reviewed by the WG, I'll incorporate it in the draft Initial Report.

With best regards,

Marika