Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Recommended Modifications to the Latest ERTP Recommendation

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael and Barbara,

many thanks to both of you for this discussion -- i'm comfortable with where 
the two are you are headed, so you've got my vote to go ahead and drive this 
last round of changes in Michael.

mikey


On May 19, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Michael Collins wrote:

> Hi Barbara and all,
>  
> Thank you for your work on this. It is good to remove erroneous assumptions 
> about TDRP from ETRP. I am disappointed that the TDRP cannot be used to 
> resolve a potential dispute between registrars and their customers that 
> results in an ETRP. I am not sure that it is within our mandate to suggest 
> any changes to TDRP, though it does not seem to work well in practice 
> according to some members of our group.
>  
> It was my desire for the domain to stay in the control of PTRa during a 
> dispute. However, if we are going to accept that a claim of hijacking (ETRP) 
> is cause to reverse a transfer, we should accept that a claim that an ETRP 
> was filed in error (Disputed ETRP) as cause to restore a transfer, not just 
> when PTRa agrees. PTRa should not be put in the place of deciding a dispute 
> between PTRa and the gaining Registrar. Both claims (ETRP and Disputed ETRP) 
> must present the same level of explanation, identification and 
> indemnification and lacking any dispute resolution mechanism should be 
> treated with equal actions.
>  
> It is my opinion that most hijackers will not want to reveal their identity 
> and indemnify their registrar, so most ETRPs caused by hijacking will not 
> result in a Disputed ETRP. PTRa could still file a TDRP to resolve an ITRP 
> dispute, but it would not get to decide the dispute in a TDRP.
>  
> Would the group like to discuss this before I attempt to edit the document to 
> make these changes?
>  
> Best regards,
> Michael Collins
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:47 PM
> To: IRTP B Mailing List
> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Recommended Modifications to the Latest ERTP 
> Recommendation
>  
> All,
> 
> I have incorporated my recommended modifications into the latest version of 
> the document.  Because this proposed policy is intended to augment existing 
> policies, I have deleted the language relating to option to dispute a 
> disputed ERTPusing the TDRP.  Also, the registries will not want to be in the 
> middle of the communications that ensue between the PTRa and the new 
> Registrar should the new Registrar elect to dispute the ERTP.  The registries 
> would add little to no value in that activity.  To the extent that the PTRa, 
> upon receipt of a Disputed ERTP case from the new Registrar, agrees that the 
> domain name should not have been transferred via the ETRP, then they would 
> forward the Disputed TDRP to the appropriate Registry Operator and the 
> Registry Operator would restore the domain name to the new Registrar within 5 
> days (I changed this from 30 days as the IRTP calls for the following in Part 
> A, Section 6:
> 
> “The Registry Operator must undo the transfer within five (5) calendar days 
> of receipt of the notice except in the case of a Registry dispute decision, 
> in which case the Registry Operator must undo the transfer within fourteen 
> calendar days unless a court action is filed. The notice required shall be 
> one of the following:
> 
> i. Agreement of the Registrar of Record and the Gaining Registrar sent by 
> email, letter or fax that the transfer was made by mistake or was otherwise 
> not in accordance with the procedures set forth in this policy;
> 
> ii. The final determination of a dispute resolution body having jurisdiction 
> over the transfer; or
> 
> iii. Order of a court having jurisdiction over the transfer.”
> 
> Please let me know if any of my recommended edits do not make sense.  Many 
> thanks.
> 
> <<...>>
> 
> Barbara Steele
> 
> Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
> 
> VerSign, Inc.
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)