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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika:

I think I recall another point w.r.t. ETRP raised by Mikey in Brussels. 
Something to the effect of ETRP not being a dispute-resolution
mechanism, but tying its use to a more comprehensive review once a
transfer was restored.

Was there anything like that in the transcript, or am I mis-remembering?
 If so, can we get this captured on our topic list?

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Agenda for tomorrow's meeting
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 05, 2010 4:18 am
To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@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
 
 
+ Roll Call 
+ New member intros 
+ 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) 
+ Opening of public comment forum (see
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ - should be opened in the course
of Monday 5 July) 
+ 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?) 
+