Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Agenda for tomorrow's meeting
<grin> sheesh, how can i turn down a request like "come on Mikey"... i spout so many words i can't remember where those were said, but you're right Chris. my understanding of our goal with ETRP is to rapidly return a hijacked domain to it's prior state and then allow various dispute mechanisms the time to figure out what is really going on. i've attached a little picture that i drew (primarily for myself) which attempts to describe the boundaries of the process, and also the dispute mechanisms which surround it. i view this rapid-return thingy as a protection mechanism for registrants who've had their domains hijacked and *very urgently** need to get the situation "put back to the way it was" while the dispute is resolved. walking through the process (at least the way i've documented it) here are a few points that i'd like to highlight... -- the process starts with the losing registrant realizing that their domain has been spirited away. it would seem to me that there's wiggle room in how long this takes -- it seems like the person who's seen their online presence go dark is going to realize this within minutes or hours, so maybe we should think about dialing back on the length of time this option is available. 60 days strikes me as too long, and also causes many of the issues that have arisen. -- the losing registrar needs to review the situation and make sure that there's really a problem for which the appropriate response is ETRP. another thought. perhaps we can beef up the language that describes appropriate applications of the process (mostly "hijacking" in my view) to make it clear that clawing back a domain by a seller with second thoughts is NOT an appropriate use of this process. that would give registrars a good basis for saying "no thanks" to the seller who's backing out of a deal. -- in my view, the losing registrant has one more option available IF the registrar doesn't accept the losing registrant's version of the dispute -- they can escalate the problem to ICANN Compliance for a second opinion. -- presuming all those hurdles are cleared, THEN the domain is rolled back to its prior state. it's not an automatic thing, humans need to look at the situation and exercise their judgement before the rollback happens. again, i view this as a tool for the White Hats to stop a runaway domain before it gets transferred so far away that nobody can recover it. -- once the domain has been "put back the way it was" there are several layers of dispute mechanisms (already available) to launch which can be used to get to the bottom of the situation and sort out who's in the right. a critical piece of this is to give those existing dispute mechanisms time to gather facts and work through the issues. take a look at my little drawing... that's what i'm basing all this stuff on... mikey Attachment:
Disputed IRT v3.pdf On Jul 6, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Chris Chaplow wrote: > > Mikey was invited to re-state his wisdom twice in Brussels - Sunday and > Wednesday. Something on the lines of "Return in haste and review in > leisure" so good I can not remember it and don’t have my notes with me. > > Come on Mikey...... > > Chris Chaplow > Managing Director > Andalucía.com S.L. > Avenida del Carmen 9 > Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo > 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 > Estepona, 29680 > Malaga, Spain > Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 > Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 > E-mail: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Web: www.andaluciaws.com > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Michele Neylon :: > Blacknight > Enviado el: martes, 06 de julio de 2010 23:02 > Para: James M. Bladel > CC: Marika Konings; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx > Asunto: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Agenda for tomorrow's meeting > > > 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 > > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
|