RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B and the ETRP

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well said, Paul. And I wholeheartedly support your proposal to drop the
ETRP proposal.

We have already identified that IRTP (change of REGISTRAR) is
inappropriately used to affect a "change of REGISTRANT/CONTROL" of a
domain name registration.  Until this is remedied (possibly by the
adoption of a formal "CHANGE OF CONTROL" function) the ETRP idea is a
non-starter.  Any attempts to provide a corrective mechanism for the
technical IRTP function will inevitably drift in to the area of dispute
resolution. 

The larger Registrars have existing tools and procedures at their
disposal to address hijacking.  Sometimes they work well, other times
they come up short.  We will continue to do our utmost to address the
majority of hijacking incidents with the tools available, but with the
understanding that some incidents may be beyond our ability to help. 
And we will continue to use mechanisms which, in our judgment, prevent
the hijacking problem in the first place (e.g. 60-day lock).  

If the ETRP experience accomplishes nothing else, then perhaps it raised
awareness of this problem in the larger ICANN community, and given folks
a clearer insight in to the thinking behind Registrar security
practices.


Thanks--


J.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B and the ETRP
From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, January 11, 2011 3:49 pm
To: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>


Dear WG colleagues,

We’ve spent a lot of time working through IRTP B issues, including the
ETRP proposal. Now many of us are spending an extra hour a week just on
the latter. Some (thank you, Berry & Mikey) have volunteered even more
time to try to graph the existing and proposed processes so that we can
see where all of this might dovetail or conflict. 

Looking at the to-do list (in part, below) and considering the clock,
does it make sense to keep investing time and effort in the ETRP
concept? 

While I appreciate the "can do" attitude of the sub-team members, I have
to ask: is it realistic? We're far from working out critical details
like the amount of time to file a claim, what entity should lock a
disputed name, what constitutes "due process," who might independently
administer the process, and how to educate the community. As we drill
down on each issue, we realize that are a host of other concerns and/or
potential unintended consequences. And we haven't really begun to
consider the implications of this potential policy on existing practices
and standards...

I believe we've collectively given the ETRP concept a fair chance, but
we should drop it. There are simply too many moving parts. The community
(our Stakeholder Group colleagues, those who offered comments to the
Initial Report, and/or domain industry survey participants) has not been
supportive of the concept, and many argue existing (albeit imperfect)
tools suffice. 

While I originally supported the ETRP concept as a quick and predictable
way to return hijacked domains to their rightful registrant, I believe
the current proposal has drifted from that goal and is now unworkable -
and unworthy of additional policy work. We can better serve the
community by focusing our energies on the other remaining issues, and
get our Final Report to the Council ahead of ICANN San Francisco. 

Respectfully, P

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:55 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed agenda IRTP Part B WG meeting

For the 2nd Hour Team & All of IRTP-B for that matter,

I apologize for not getting this out in time for review before our call.
 30 lashes to me!  

Here is a revised agenda for the 2nd Hour:
1. Recap last week’s discussion and proposals
2. Review Mikey’s eTRP Diagram (ps, I started a swimlame version too)
3. Review survey results spreadsheet


2nd Hour Take-Aways from 4 Jan 2011 (Please feel free to add to the list
if I misstated or omitted anything):
• Agreement to keep eTRP but modify to prevent misuse and gaming
• Possible enhancements:
o Ensure rapid restore of domain is maintained, and domain becomes
locked
o shorter timeline for filing complaint (60 days to perhaps 7 days or
shorter?)
o option for the other side to state their case, “due process”
o independent third party to administer the process (can't be the
previous registrar as that party is not impartial)
o better define eTRP process as not a dispute resolution tool, it only
interfaces to IRTP & TDRP
o Create education for parties on how to handle complaints and interact
o Also include the 60 day lock WRT to Denial Reason #9
• Objective is to slow down or minimize hops common to hi-jacks
• If this were to become consensus policy, it is a fall back for
Registrars to mitigate customer dissatisfaction
o Determine how the Change of Registrant or Reducing Admin Contact
authority recommendations, if made will affect eTRP

Mikey mentioned two layers of remediation of Transfer issue:
1. Registrar to Registrar – informal cooperation
2. Registrar to Registrar – TDRP with ICANN involved

I came across other material and I think there are additional layers
that perhaps should be documented within the final report:
1. Registrant to PTRr – Registrar denies dispute
2. PTRr to PTRa – informal cooperation
3. PTRr to PTRa w/ ICANN – via TDRP
4. Registry Specific Reassignment Service - ← This is new to me
5. Law Enforcement / Courts

See you all tomorrow morning!

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://infinityportals.com
720.839.5735

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:24 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed agenda IRTP Part B WG meeting

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 – 11 January 2011
 
1st hour – 15.00 – 16.00 UTC
1. Roll Call / Update SOI-DOI
2. Continue discussion on recommendations (please review updated
recommendations overview)
3. For review - EPP Status Values Overview (see attached)
4. Next steps & confirm next meeting
 
2nd hour – 16.00 – 17.00 UTC
5. Continue discussion and refinement of ETRP (action items from last
week's meeting: Review Mikey's flowchart and Berry's analysis of ETRP
survey results – both attached)
6. Next steps  

Remaining Action Items IRTP Part B WG meeting 21 December
• Circulate relevant section from transcript of WHOIS session in
Sydney during which inconsistencies with the UDRP provision relating to
locking of a domain name was discussed (James)
• Circulate overview and definition of EPP status values document for
WG input (Marika – attached in this email)