RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] 60 day lock following registrant change

["Michael Collins" <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George,

I believe we are participating in this group with the same interests in mind
so I hate to be perceived as opposing you. Anything I say is with great
appreciation for your participation. However, it is difficult for the group
to make progress on our mission if we spend much time discussing situations
where you are arguing more than one PDP issue at once.

The group's report states; "The WG agrees that there should be a mechanism
to dispute an ETRP but has not reached agreement on how such a mechanism
might work." Please continue to encourage the WG to include a dispute
provision and even help to design it. However, we should discuss item C
without using an incomplete ETRP as the primary basis for your position. If
you remove it from your example, the effect of a 60 lock do not seem so
onerous. One could, as GoDaddy suggests, transfer the domain to a preferred
registrar before a registrant change.

If the group moves away from creating an ETRP dispute mechanism that it
agrees is needed, then I support your argument of the combined effects of
these decisions. For now, I would prefer you help create an acceptable
dispute provision. It is not an easy task!

You bring up one point that causes me to rethink our decision about item C.
What is to prevent a registrar from using a lock longer than 60 days? A 60
day lock does not seem onerous to me, but a 360 day lock might be. I doubt
that a 50-year lock would fly with compliance, but I am not sure of that. In
light of this concern, should we reconsider prohibiting a lock when there is
a registrant change, specifying an appropriate lock period or even requiring
a 60-day lock for all registrars?

Best regards,
Michael Collins