<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For review - Recommendation #9
- To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For review - Recommendation #9
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 01:52:31 -0800
Recommendation #9 - The WG proposes to modify section 3 of the IRTP to require
that the Registrar of Record/Losing Registrar be required to [confirm] notify
the Registered Name Holder/Registrant of the transfer out. The Registrar of
Record has access to the contact information for the Registrant and could
modify their systems to automatically send out the Standardized Form for Losing
Registrars ("Confirmation FOA") to the Registrant. [Failure by the Registrant
to respond within the 5 day pendingTransfer grace period would result in the
transfer request being automatically denied or Nacked. At the time that the
transfer is requested via the Gaining Registrar, the Transfer Contact that
requested the transfer would be informed that positive confirmation by the
Registrant is required to complete the transfer and that the Registrant will be
receiving the Confirmation FOA from the Registrar of Record.]
Notes: An alternative proposal was suggested to address the charter question by
requiring a positive confirmation of the transfer by the losing registrar (see
email from Barbara:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00590.html).
Most members did not agree with the proposal to allow the losing registrar to
deny a transfer if no response had been received from the registrant. It was
proposed instead to require the losing registrar to confirm the transfer, but
not allow a non-confirmation as a reason to deny the transfer. Rationale for
this recommendation to be added to the notes of the report.
=====================
Please share any comments, suggestions and/or proposed edits with the mailing
list.
With best regards,
Marika
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|