[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Updated list of main points from Brussels

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Based on our discussion yesterday and the exchanges on the mailing list, please 
find below the updated list of main points coming from the discussions that 
were held in Brussels in relation to the IRTP Part B Initial Report. I would 
propose that we add these items to the list of issues that will come from the 
public comment forum for further review by the WG in due time.

With best regards,

Marika

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

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?)
 *   Consider irrevocable transfer procedure
 *   ETRP is not a dispute-resolution mechanism in itself, but needs to be tied 
to a more comprehensive review once a transfer has been restored e.g. UDRP