RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - Updated proposals recommendation #8 and #9

["Chris Chaplow" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika,

IRTP Part B recommendation #8 (Whois Status Messages)

Options a) require registrars to include an hyperlink to an ICANN web-page
where the different status are explained in their Whois output

sounds  good to me.

 

 

Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucia.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail:  <mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com
Information about Andalucia, Spain.

 

De: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Marika Konings
Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de octubre de 2011 11:16
Para: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [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