RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For FINAL review - IRTP Part B Final Report - deadline 29 May 2011

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good catch, Mikey.  

One other thought:  Do we want to say "unauthorized loss" when really
all we have is a claim or suspicion at this point?  Perhaps "alleged
unauthorized transfer"?

Am I over-thinking this?

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For FINAL review - IRTP Part B Final
Report - deadline 29 May 2011
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 25, 2011 8:14 am
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>

hi all,

i've attached a copy of the draft with a few changes. i started with a
clean draft so's to highlight the little nits i picked out.

there's only one substantive change. i made the following change in the
three places that this sentence appeared…

old:

"A TEAC must be requested by the registrant in a timely manner, within a
reasonable period of time following the unauthorized loss of a domain"

new:

"A TEAC must be requested in a timely manner, within a reasonable period
of time following the unauthorized loss of a domain"

so i'm striking the words "by the registrant" -- the reason i'm
suggesting this is that the TEAC cannot be requested by the registrant,
only the registrar.

all the rest of the changes are mostly just nits or formatting. i also
highlight one section that should be reviewed once Simonetta and James
finish up on their language.

thanks,

mikey



On May 25, 2011, at 4:45 AM, Marika Konings wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> You'll find posted on the wiki 
> (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtpb/For+Review+by+29+May+2011) the 
> latest version of the Final Report. This version includes the changes 
> discussed on our call yesterday (including amongst others: changing Emergency 
> Action Channel to Transfer Emergency Action Contact; updated notes to reflect 
> WG discussion and conclusion on 60-day lock recommendation; updated TEAC FAQ).
> 
> This version does not include updated language to reflect that the 60-day 
> lock should be considered as part of the Issue Report on 'change of control' 
> (recommendation #4) as discussed yesterday, which will be circulated later 
> today on the mailing list for your review and comment by James / Simonetta. 
> In addition, it does not include any language Barbara may submit to convey 
> that in the case of a transfer undo registries will update the registrar of 
> record to its previous state.
> 
> Apart from the updated recommendation in relation to the 60-day lock which 
> you will have the opportunity to review separately, the report notes that all 
> the recommendations listed currently in the report have the full consensus 
> support from the Working Group.
> 
> Please review the latest version of the Final Report. You are encouraged to 
> share any comments/edits/suggestions you may have as soon as possible but no 
> later than COB 29 May 2011. The objective is to submit this report to the 
> GNSO Council and for publication on Monday 30 May 2011.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika

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