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

["Michael Collins" <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Paul. Answers to your questions below.

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

+1. 407 242 9009 mobile

 

From: Diaz, Paul [mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 11:47 AM
To: Michael Collins; Marika Konings; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] ETRP

 

Hi Michael,

 

Thanks for the thought and effort that went into your "Disputed ETRP"
proposal.  I'm still thinking through the details, but would appreciate
clarification on a few points:

 

*       In 5.2, you recommend allowing the party that wants to undo the ETRP
up to 14 days to file their petition.  Why so long?  This seems inconsistent
with all of the other timeframes associated with transfer policies.

The PTRr has 60 days to file an ETRP. (Kevin wants to allow even more time
in some cases.) This makes a 14 day window for the new Registrar to file the
Disputed ETRP comparatively short. This timing is open for discussion.

 

*       In 5.4.1, are you using the term "registrant" in a general sense, or
as defined by ICANN (aka Registered Name Holder)?  If the former, then this
could involve the Administrative Contact for the domain?  If so, are we
rehashing to the Registrant trumps AC dilemma?

I defer to the sub-group to answer this. I merely copied their language from
section 3. It is not my intent to bring the registrar/admin conflict into
the ETRP, though I suppose it could be one cause for dispute. What if an
IRTP transfer is reversed by ETRP for a domain that was sold to a new
registrant; the domain transfer might have been approved by the admin
contact, but the buyer believes that the registered name holder is bound by
the sale/purchase agreement?

 

*       In 5.9, you note that the TDRP allows a complainant up to 6 months
to file their petition.  You go on to note that "it is not reasonable" for a
name to remain with the PTRr for this entire period when the domain name is
in dispute.  Setting aside for a moment using a word like "reasonable," if
the WG accepts your position do we also need to recommend a change to the
TDRP timeframe?

I am not proposing any changes to TDRP. I only meant that the domain name
should not remain locked with the PTRr for this six month period. If the
PTRr wants to file a TDRP, they should do so during the "suggested" 60 day
ETRP lock. Otherwise, the domain name will be transferred to the new
Registrar while the TDRP is heard as it is today without the existence of an
ETRP.

 

*       In 5.10, doesn't the Registry Operator determine the outcome of a
TDRP?  If so, that entity will know the outcome of the proceeding and could
unlock a contested domain name as appropriate.  Do we need any of the text
after the first sentence (i.e. just confirm that the Registry Operator locks
the name - at the Registry level - when the TDRP is filed)?

Maybe, I am not sure. I think my intent is clear to this group, but I
welcome help making this clear to the public.

 

*       In 5.11, why do you recommend a 30-day timeframe?  Wouldn't the
interests of a registrant (using the term in the general sense, as an Admin
Contact could prevail in a TDRP) be better served by a much shorter
timeframe?

I am flexible on timing. You have a better idea than I do about how long
these kinds of procedures will take.

 

Best regards, P

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Collins
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:48 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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
<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