RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - draft IRTP Part B Initial Report

["Michael Collins" <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kevin and all:

 

I understand the scenario that you are trying to guard against. It seems
like a valid concern. However, I am not sure that it is wise to have no
deadline for filing an ETRP. For one thing, the TDRP is limited to six
months after a transfer, meaning that a TDRP could not be used to resolve a
Disputed ETRP after six months. If we keep the "becoming aware" language, we
should consider extending the deadline no longer than would accommodate a
TDRP filing.

 

As an option to extending the deadline for filing an ETRP or to supplement
it, we could suggest a change to IRTP policy requiring the Registrar of
Record to notify the Registrant of transfer requests. It is optional now.
Further, we could suggest requiring a second notice upon completion of a
transfer to increase chances that notification is received. Thoughts about
this?

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

 

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Erdman, Kevin R.
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:48 PM
To: Marika Konings; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - draft IRTP Part B Initial
Report

 

Dear All,

 

I believe this was discussed in the prior teleconference, but here is a
brief summary of the rational for using the 'Registrant becoming aware of
the transfer' language.  If I were a hijacker and wanted to avoid the ETRP,
I would reset the Registrant info and transfer the domain but not change any
of the DNS settings (so the domain proprietor would have no reason to check
on the status of the domain registration).  Then after the 60 day period,
the hijacker changes the DNS info and the prior Registrant finds that its
web site does not work.  This 'Registrant becoming aware of the transfer'
language allows a Registrant to invoke the ETRP in such a situation, but
require that the prior Registrant explain its situation.  The veracity of
the prior Registrant explanation would not necessarily be examined, but
could be a basis for reversing an ETRP in a situation where a prior
Registrant was abusing the process and such explanation was discredited in a
TDRP.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________

Kevin R Erdman  T: 317.237.1029 | F: 317.237.8521 | C: 317.289.3934
Intellectual Property, Internet, and Information Attorney, Registered Patent
Attorney
BAKER & DANIELS LLP  <http://www.bakerdaniels.com/> WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM 300
N. MERIDIAN STREET, SUITE 2700 | INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:16 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - draft IRTP Part B Initial
Report

 

Dear All,

Following the IRTP Part B WG meeting yesterday, please find attached and
posted on the wiki (https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/) an updated version of
the draft Initial Report for your review. I have integrated the proposed
ETRP language, from the latest draft circulated by Kevin yesterday, in Annex
C. Please note some changes I made highlighted in blue in Annex C, as well
as some outstanding issues highlighted in yellow. I also highlighted one
addition that was made by Kevin that as far as I recall was not discussed on
yesterday's meeting in relation to the 'Registrant becoming aware of the
transfer'. It is not clear to me what that actually means or how that could
be enforced. Maybe Kevin could provide some additional clarification? Annex
C will need to be further updated once the sub-team provides its definitions
of registrant. Also, there is still a placeholder in the report for a
recommendation for issue D, which is on Michele's 'to do' list.

As agreed yesterday, you are strongly encouraged to review the draft Initial
Report and share your edits / comments with the mailing list at the latest
by 19 May so that a final review can take place at our meeting on 25 May.

Thanks,

Marika 


----------------------------
ATTENTION:
 
To ensure compliance with applicable Internal Revenue Service Regulations,
we inform you that any tax advice contained in this electronic message was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.
 
 
This message and all its attachments are PRIVATE and may contain
information that is CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED.
 
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply 
e-mail and delete the message immediately.