RE: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] ETRP
Marika and the group: I edited the document to add a "Disputed ETRP". I understand now why the sub-group didn't want to tackle this issue. There were more issues to work through than I first realized. I tried to accomplish what I thought we set as a goal for ETRP when we first began discussing it. Create a means to quickly return a domain to a pre-transfer state after a hijacking claim, allowing a dispute (TDRP), if any, to be heard while the original registrant has use of the domain name. I added a new section (5) and made a couple changes to existing text to require registrant notification and locking ETRP domains to provide time to hear a dispute. I copied as much language as I could from what was already written. Please consider it a starting point for including a dispute process. 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 Attachment:
ETRP Draft - Michael Collins 10 May 2010.doc
|