[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: Follow up on 'I don't agree' response to IRTP survey

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger" 
<simonetta@xxxxxxxx<mailto:simonetta@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 06:00:07 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" 
<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: Follow up on 'I don't agree' response to IRTP survey

Hi Marika/Michele,

Sorry, this is coming late.

Here’s a proposal for the content (I’m sure we can clean up language in our 
call today).

Current Text:
The WG notes that the IRTP is widely used to effect a change of "control" over 
a given registration, as opposed to simply moving the registration to a new 
sponsoring registrar with all contacts unchanged. While the IRTP lists both the 
registrant and the admin contact as authorized "transfer contacts" to change 
registrars, the change of control function is not defined. Therefore, the WG 
recommends that only the registrant can effect achange ofcontrol, while both 
the registrant and admin contact remain eligible to authorize a transfer that 
does not modify any contact information. This could be achieved by either (a) 
restricting the admin contact's ability to modify any contact information 
associated with the domain name, or (b) ensuring that any transfer reversal or 
change of control features are explicitly limited for use by the registrant 
only. Do you agree with the recommendation that anew, change of control process 
is neeed to transact registrations between registrants?

Proposed Changes:
The WG notes that the IRTP is widely used to effect a change of "control" over 
a given registration, as opposed to simply moving the registration to a new 
sponsoring registrar with all contacts unchanged. While the IRTP lists both the 
registrant and the admin contact as authorized "transfer contacts" to change 
registrars, the change of control function is not defined. Therefore, the WG 
recommends that a policy addressing the details of change of control mechanisms 
in conjunction with domain transfers should be worked out. The workgroup 
addressing this issue should draw on specialists from the registries, the 
registrars, the secondary market, domain portfolio holders and ICANN policy 
staff.

Simonetta


Simonetta Batteiger
--
Product Manager - Registrar Channel
Sedo.com :: 161 First Street :: Cambridge, MA 02142
tel 617-499-7275 :: fax 617-499-7203
twitter: simonettasedo
http://www.sedo.com :: 
simonetta.batteiger@xxxxxxxx<mailto:firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxx>

The Q3 Market Study is 
out!<http://sedo.com/fileadmin/documents/pressdownload/Q3_MarketStudy_2010_US.pdf>

Follow us on:
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/sedo> :: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/sedo> 
:: RSS<http://www.sedo.com/rss>

Confidentiality Statement:

This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary 
information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is 
addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or 
her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any 
dissemination,distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this 
message and delete this e-mail immediately.
P Please consider the environment before printing this email or any attachments.

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger
Cc: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Subject: Re: Follow up on 'I don't agree' response to IRTP survey

Thanks, Simonetta. Happy holidays!!

Best regards,

Marika

From: "Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger" 
<simonetta@xxxxxxxx<mailto:simonetta@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:01:13 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" 
<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: Follow up on 'I don't agree' response to IRTP survey

I’ll work on something over the holidays and sent it to you before January 4th.
About to head to the airport to hopefully board a flight home for Christmas…
Hope you’ll have nice holidays!
Simonetta

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:38 PM
To: Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger
Cc: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Subject: Re: Follow up on 'I don't agree' response to IRTP survey

Thanks, Simonetta, for your feedback. Would you like to suggest some language 
for inclusion in the report, or additions to the recommendation that might 
address your concern for consideration by the WG?

With best regards,

Marika

From: "Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger" 
<simonetta@xxxxxxxx<mailto:simonetta@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 06:31:14 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" 
<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: Follow up on 'I don't agree' response to IRTP survey

Hi Marika,

I do agree that a new change of control process would be something that is 
desirable to work out, as this is an area of the current IRTP that is not 
defined and touching the transactions the secondary market is performing on a 
daily basis. It would be nice to have procedural clarity around that process.

I do not agree with the recommendation proposal mentioned above the question if 
a new process should be discussed. There is a lack of detail around the 
proposal to limit the AdminC’s rights around the transfer of a domain name (as 
is, this is something I don’t agree with) and I fear this would lead to much 
confusion and inconsistent application. This process should bediscussed in much 
greater detail and in my opinion is not an area this workgroup has spent 
sufficient time researching and discussing (at least not while I was on the 
group). I would like to see this opinion reflected in our final report, so that 
we don’t make a 100% consensus recommendation on an item that I strongly 
believe needs a lot more work.

Simonetta


From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 5:42 AM
To: Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger
Cc: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Subject: Follow up on 'I don't agree' response to IRTP survey

Hi Simonetta,

As discussed during yesterday's IRTP call, I'm following up with those that did 
not agree with certain of the recommendations proposed for inclusion in the 
IRTP report for charter questions B, D and E. You responded 'I don't agree' to 
the following proposed recommendation for charter question B (question 15 of 
the survey):

The WG notes that the IRTP is widely used to effect a change of "control" over 
a given registration, as opposed to simply moving the registration to a new 
sponsoring registrar with all contacts unchanged. While the IRTP lists both the 
registrant and the admin contact as authorized "transfer contacts" to change 
registrars, the change of control function is not defined. Therefore, the WG 
recommends that only the registrant can effect achange of control, while both 
the registrant and admin contact remain eligible to authorize a transfer that 
does not modify any contact information. This could be achieved by either (a) 
restricting the admin contact's ability to modify any contact information 
associated with the domain name, or (b) ensuring that any transfer reversal or 
change of control features are explicitly limited for use by the registrant 
only. Do you agree with the recommendation that anew, change of control process 
is neeed to transact registrations between registrants?

In light of the recent WG discussions, are you planning to put forward an 
alternative recommendation or edits to this recommendation for consideration by 
the WG, have you changed your position on this recommendation or are you 
planning to record a minority viewpoint for inclusion in the report?

Thanks,

Marika