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

["Erdman, Kevin R." <Kevin.Erdman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul and all:

 

I do not think that the PTRa's responsibility ever ends.  However, the PTRa
only needs to forward the ETRP package to the new Registrar for which it can
charge a fee.  I think that the ICANN obligations are only to send the ETRP
packet to the new Registrar, the PTRa may set its own document retention
policies and require the Registrant to provide all relevant
information/documentation.  Or I am misunderstanding the obligations created
on the PTRa?

 

Also note that in 3.1 I missed one "Token" which should be "Title".

_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________

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: Diaz, Paul [mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:38 PM
To: Erdman, Kevin R.; Marika Konings; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - draft IRTP Part B Initial
Report

 

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.

 


----------------------------
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.