[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from the RySG
- To: "ITRP-B Mailing List Mailing List" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from the RySG
- From: "Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:03:53 -0400
I wanted to pass along some feedback that I have received from the RySG
relating to the EAC.
1. As I mentioned in last week's meeting, many of the registries
do not have the practical resources to quickly undo a transfer if
requested to do so the SLAs are not realistic across all registries.
2. While the final report did propose the framework for an EAC and
as for feedback on it, the final report didn't specifically mention
registry involvement or registry SLAs. It is generally felt by the
majority of the members of the RySG that this is a new requirement
coming very late in the process.
3. Many of the registries feel that if a registrar fails to do
something that it is obligated to do, it should not become the
registry's obligation. The RySG would rather see a compliance solution
as would be the case if a registrar fails to execute a UDRP decision.
4. If the WG is considering creating new compliance obligations
for the registries, it should be justified. Everyone in the WG has
agreed that the number of hijacking cases continues to be very small.
The specific information relating to the number of cases has largely
been undocumented. We would prefer to see some real data on the number
of hijackings that have occurred.
At the end of the day, many of the registries have not seen any transfer
dispute cases, so there is concern that they would be held to stringent
requirements when there has been little to no justification to support
registry involvement. Thanks.
Director of Policy