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

[Bob Mountain <bmountain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James / Paul,

+1.

Mtn.



On 1/11/11 6:58 PM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 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)
> 
> 

--  
Robert J. Mountain
Vice President, Business Development
NameMedia, Inc.
mtn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
C: +1-508-878-0469
O: +1-781-839-2871
F: +1-781-839-2801