Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] i'm offering another approach to the ERTP thingy

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

that "background section" at the top is lifted from SAC007.  i think that's all 
they say…

On Feb 11, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Diaz, Paul wrote:

> Can you please attach SAC007 (I don’t remember what the Emergency Action 
> Channel proposal entails)
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:16 PM
> To: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx> List
> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] i'm offering another approach to the ERTP thingy
>  
> hi all,
>  
> i've shamelessly edited the document we reviewed last week, making it even 
> simpler but i think also better.  i'd like to take a few minutes on the call 
> to review this idea.  here's the gist of it.
>  
> the problem with ETRP and all of it's related kin is that it:
>  
> a) forces the registrar and/or the registry to judge the merits of a 
> hijacking claim at lightening speed -- and essentially makes them 
> dispute-resolvers in a situation of imperfect information.
>  
> b) that high-speed judgement also leaves the process open to gaming by 
> disgruntled sellers looking to "claw back" a domain name.
>  
> preventing these two problems leads to all kinds of complexity and, as we 
> discovered, eventually gets too heavy for its own weight.  so let's step back…
>  
> what if we:
>  
> a) recommend enacting the Emergency Action Channel proposed in SAC007
>  
> b) remove the judgement-call/dispute-resolution by registrars/registries
>  
> c) make the criteria for urgent-return be factual and externally-verifiable 
> -- "the gaining registrar does not respond to an Emergency Action request 
> within X hours"
>  
> d) remove the changes to the TDRP, since the return is being done for 
> non-disputable reasons
>  
> this way, neither the losing registrar nor the registry have to evaluate 
> anything to do with the claim of hijacking, they simply are provided a way to 
> get a domain name returned to its prior state in the case where the gaining 
> registrar is not communicating.  presumably, since registrars are pretty 
> confident that they can resolve most of the hijacking problems if they can 
> actually *talk* to the other party, this would address some pretty large 
> proportion of the problem.
>  
> what say you?  i've attached the slashed up version of the draft for you to 
> review.
>  
> mikey
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)