[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Agenda for tomorrow's meeting

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s IRTP Part B WG meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

==================

Proposed Agenda – IRTP Part B WG Meeting, 6 July 2010


 1.  Roll Call
 2.  New member intros
 3.  Review of Information & Consultation Session at ICANN meeting in Brussels 
(see main points below or http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12502 for transcript 
and recording)
 4.  Opening of public comment forum (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ - should be opened in the course of 
Monday 5 July)
 5.  Next steps & confirm next meeting

Main points from IRTP Part B Initial Report Information & Consultation Session

ETRP


 *   Need for clearer terminology in relation to the ETRP
 *   What is meant with ‘urgent’ in the first charter question? Is this linked 
to a subjective determination of whether a return is deemed urgent because of 
financial reasons or is this linked to the timeframe i.e. quick return 
regardless of the domain name registration involved?
 *   Is a separate policy required taking into account other options available 
such as an injunction and does the incidence warrant a new policy?
 *   Are there sufficient safeguards build into the ETRP that protect against 
abuse / misuse (e.g. what proof needs to be provided to determine that it 
concerns a hijacking, how do you avoid / deter the system being used by 
registrants to get their domain name back after a sale has been completed)
 *   Abuse / misuse of the ETRP should be strongly penalized
 *   ETRP is re-active, additional focus should be given to proactive approach 
of preventing unauthorized transfers e.g. requiring a dual key before a 
transfer can be authorized
 *   There needs to be certainty in the transfer process – allowing it to be 
contested up to six months does not help
 *   Should the system of locks be abolished all together?
 *   Closer review of indemnification provisions recommended (will 
indemnification be effective, should the ‘undoing’ registrar be indemnified?)
 *