ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtp-b-jun09]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP Swimlane - DRAFT

  • To: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP Swimlane - DRAFT
  • From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:59 -0800

The money section is Section 6, Registry Requirements, paragraph 4 (w/ three
bullets).  The procedure has been right in front of us all along, but
requires minor additions to accommodate the concepts of an eTRP.

-          If we added a 4th bullet ? ?iv. In cases of hijacking, either the
RoR or GR can invoke the undo transfer procedure, based on some sort of
expected restore time frame? (eTRP has 48 hours)

 

The team should also review the following sections, as I believe small
updates to these sections will be required to accommodate a transfer undo
for hijacking invoked in Section 6:

-          Section 2 Gaining Registrar Requirements

-          Section 3 Obligations of Registrar of Record

-          Section 4 Registrar Coordination

 

On today?s call, I misstated the updates that would be required for TDRP.
Not only will it require a return hook back to IRTP upon conclusion of the
TDRP to set things based on outcome, but Mikey and I think that some sort of
?Level 0? should be added.  Refer to Section 2.0 of TDRP.  The idea here is
if an Undo request is submitted as a result of a perceived hi-jacking, it
will automatically invoke TDRP.  We did not want to diminish Registrars from
working together to resolve the problem first before more formal DR, and
therefore a ?Level 0? type DR would only document the Undo for a hijack.  If
the case is resolved at level 0, great, else the dispute would traverse to
Level 1 or Level 2 per existing TDRP.  The notion of invoking TDRP on this
type of undo is to document the dispute and provide better visibility to the
issue of hijacking.  

 

You may perceive the list above to be a large number of changes, but I
believe it to be more bark than bite.  As I stated on the call, Mikey and I
started a draft of changes for the IRTP and TDRP to document this concept.
We will send out to the list when it becomes presentable.  I will also
attempt to conclude the swimlanes to reflect a proposed state to accompany
the policy documents.

 

 

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 Chris Chaplow
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:31 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP Swimlane - DRAFT

 

Thanks Berry,

 

Which were the sections of the IRTP you referred to specifically on the
call?

 

Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucía.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail:  <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

 

De: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Berry Cobb
Enviado el: martes, 18 de enero de 2011 16:48
Para: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP Swimlane - DRAFT

 

 

 

 

Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://infinityportals.com

720.839.5735

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy