RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B and the ETRP
You can add me as supporting Paul and James' position as well. Thanks gentlemen. Barbara Steele -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Mountain Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:54 PM To: James M. Bladel; Diaz,Paul Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B and the ETRP 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 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|