[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - Updated proposals recommendation #8 and #9
Dear All, As a result of our meeting on 27 September, two issues were raised with regard to the IRTP Part B Staff Proposals. IRTP Part B recommendation #8 (Whois Status Messages) Issue: the concern was expressed that some registrars have used Whois output to include advertising in the form of hyperlinks and as a result many registrars block the display of hyperlinks in Whois output. How would this affect the Staff proposal to use a hyperlink to direct people to the web page where the information on the status values will be located? Response: The Staff proposal puts forward two options a) require registrars to include an hyperlink to an ICANN web-page where the different status are explained in their Whois output; b) require registrars to include the status explanation directly in their Whois output. The concern regarding registrars removing hyperlinks from Whois output could be mitigated by amending option a) to require registrars to not remove ICANN hyperlinks (or particularly the ICANN status hyperlinks), in addition to including a sentence directing people to the Internic web-site. The implementation of both options a) and b) will require some efforts on the part of the registrars, but even with the addition to option a), neither of them is expected to require substantial effort or investment. The advantage of option a) is that the explanation of the status can evolve over time as need be without the registrars having to make any changes to their systems, which is not the case with option b). (see updated proposal attached) IRTP Part B recommendation #9 (Locking and unlocking of domain names): Issue: Should additional language be added to clarify that valid legal concerns overrules the 'right' of a registrant to have the domain name unlocked within 5 days? Everyone was clear that a transfer could, of course, still be denied if one of the reasons for denial would apply, but there was a desire to be able to maintain the lock if it was applied for valid reasons. Response: To address this concern, Staff proposes to add the following language to the provision: 'The registrar may still be permitted or required to restrict some registration changes or transfers pursuant to the UDRP or other ICANN consensus policies or legal requirements'. (see updated proposal attached). We hope that these modifications to the proposals address the WG's concerns. Of course, we look forward to receiving your feedback. With best regards, Marika Attachment:
IRTP Recommendation #8 - Draft Proposal - Updated 12 October 2011.doc Attachment:
bincq5IoFzvj6.bin Attachment:
IRTP Reason for Den#144780C.doc
|