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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If it wasn't raised in Brussels it was definitely raised in another call - and 
it's pretty important to highlight it


On 6 Jul 2010, at 21:57, James M. Bladel wrote:

> 
> 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?) 
> +
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845