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

["Chris Chaplow" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think its helpful, but I do need to print it out.

Is this one of yours as well Mikey?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerP
oint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html

  



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: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de julio de 2010 18:13
Para: Chris Chaplow
CC: 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: 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