[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from Tim Cole
- To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from Tim Cole
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 04:21:23 -0700
As discussed during our last meeting, I received additional feedback from Tim
concerning his conversation with James regarding the EAC. He pointed out the
* Title – the WG might want to consider replacing the term 'EAC' with
something more explicit and limited in scope to make sure it is not the subject
of abuse or "mission creep". If this is specifically intended to address urgent
transfer matters, then the term "Transfer" clearly needs to be in the name.
* RADAR - with sufficient resources dedicated to software development, it
would not be that difficult to convert or add a current contact field in RADAR
(e.g., the Transfer Contact) to the "Emergency Transfer Contact" or something
similar, whose contact information is limited to others in the same category.
In other words, an Emergency Transfer Contact at one registrar could reach out
to an Emergency Transfer Contact at another registrar. Where the new element
arises is that the communication between the two parties would be coordinated
through ICANN, with timestamps (e.g., UTC) all tracked through ICANN's system
(at least for the initial response - which is governed by the turnaround rules
– after that, resolution of any problem could be taken offline and handled
through routine channels). This takes care of the response time tracking issue
and protects the contacts from abusive use by non–eligible parties. It is
relatively straightforward and our IT folks have deemed it feasible to develop.
The WG has referred to this as a "phase two" proposal.
With best regards,