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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Kevin,

 

Just to be clear, you're proposing that a domain name be locked (at the
Registrar-level) for 60 days after the initial transfer, and then locked
(at the Registry-level) for another 60-day period once the ETRP is
filed?  What happens when the original/pre-transfer Registrant discovers
the hijack > 60 days after it occurred?  I'm trying to figure out where
(or, more accurately, when) the PTRa's responsibility to get involved
ends.  Let me be clear: Network Solutions will continue to go to great
lengths to assist its customers.  My concern lies with proposing a
mandatory policy (ETRP) that requires Registrars to follow these
processes even when the name in question has been out of the PTRa's
management for many months.

 

________________________________

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 WWW.BAKERDANIELS.COM <http://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.