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

["Sedo :: Simonetta Batteiger" <simonetta@xxxxxxxx>]

Same with me. I'm still curious to see what the new flowcharts will show, I 
agree though that we should drop it.

Not just because of the many moving parts, but also because of the feedback we 
gained from the survey showed that none of the people Bob and I interviewed 
thought that this is necessary or a good concept they would like to support.

Simonetta

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:08 AM
To: Bob Mountain; James M. Bladel; Diaz,Paul
Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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