RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - new proposed language for Recommendation #4

["Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the edits as well, with Paul's edit.  Thanks to James and
Simonetta for drafting and to Paul for his edit.



Barbara 




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:07 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - new proposed language
for Recommendation #4


Agreed, thanks.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon
::
Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:42 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - new proposed language
for
Recommendation #4
Importance: High


I'm happy with those edits and would like to thank James and Simonetta
for
coming up with language that gets us past this issue

Regards

Michele


On 25 May 2011, at 14:35, Marika Konings wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Please find below the proposed new language for recommendation #4, as
developed by James and Simonetta. You are encouraged to share your views
(any objections?) / comments and/or proposed edits with the mailing list
as
soon as possible.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marika
> 
> ========================================
>  
> Recommendation #4 (NEW): The WG notes that the primary function of
IRTP is
to permit Registered Name Holders to move registrations to the Registrar
of
their choice, with all contact information intact. The WG also notes
that
IRTP is widely used in the domain name community to affect a "change of
control," moving the domain name to a new Registered Name Holder. The
IRTP-B
WG recommends requesting an Issue Report to examine this issue,
including an
investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are
any
applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a
best
practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. The
policy recommendations should include a review of locking procedures, as
described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance
legitimate
transfer activity and security. Recommendations should be made based on
the
data needs identified in the IRTP-B workgroup discussions and should be
brought to the c!
 ommunity for public comment. The WG would like to strongly encourage
the
GNSO Council to include these issues (change of control and 60-day
post-transfer lock) as part of the next IRTP PDP and ask the new working
group to find ways to quantify their recommendations with data.
> 
> Included as part of the notes / deliberations: The working group
discussed
whether the introduction of stricter locking procedures after a domain
name
transfer might be prudent to ease the resolution of hijacking issues, as
well as other enforcement / takedown problems. At this point the working
group lacked access to data on the number of hijacking cases with
resolution
problems due to the transfer hopping practice vs. the number of
legitimate
transfers benefitting of a less stringent locking policy and could
therefore
not come to consensus on the locking topic. Data on the frequency of
hijacking cases will become available through the introduction of the
EAC
recommended in this report. Data on legitimate transfer activity
benefitting
from the current locking policy wording needs to be collected. The WG
notes
that the 60-day post-transfer lock is currently optional (IRTP Reason
for
Denial #9), and that most large registrars follow this practice. It is
however currently po!
 ssible to ask for the removal of a lock (or not apply it in the first
place) which would no longer exist should the policy be changed.  The WG
would like to emphasize that reason of denial #9 relates to a transfer,
not
to a change of control (change of registrant), although the WG realized
as a
result of its deliberations that transfers are often closely linked to a
change of control. The WG recommends that the issue of transfer
'hopping'
after hijacking be considered in conjunction with the issue of the
lacking
"change of control" function while also taking a review of the domain
locking options in IRTP into account. All three pieces should be
included as
part of the Issue Report on "change of control" (see recommendation #4).


Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://b.log.ie/
http://invadeeurope.eu/
http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/
http://rss.me/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting:
http://domainoffers.me/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845