[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] ETRP revised
As promised on the call. Best regards, Michael Collins +1. 407 242 9009 mobile From: Michael Collins [mailto:mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 5:34 PM To: 'Diaz, Paul'; 'Marika Konings'; 'Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx' Subject: RE: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] ETRP 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 Attachment:
ETRP Draft - Kevin and Michael 11 May 2010.doc
|