Re: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Updated concluding statements and revised initial report posted

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please note that I have posted an updated version of the draft Initial Report 
on the Wiki 
(https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_jun08),
 dated 15 December, in which I have integrated the concluding statements for 
each issues and updated the executive summary which will hopefully facilitate 
the review of the report on tomorrow's conference call.

With best regards,

Marika


On 12/10/08 10:55 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear All,

As discussed yesterday on our conference call, please find below an updated 
version of the proposed concluding statements for each issue. Please post your 
comments and suggestions to the list.

In addition, you will find a slightly updated version of the draft Initial 
Report posted on the Wiki 
(https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_jun08).
 The only change compared to the previous version can be found on page 22, 
where the feedback from staff on the bulk transfer provisions has been 
incorporated. Please review the report and post any comments and/or suggestions 
to the list. The aim is to review and finalise the Initial Report on the next 
conference call (16 December).

With best regards,

Marika

=========================
Issue I
Based on the discussions in the Working Group and taking into account the 
current phrasing of Issue I which limits it to a technical assessment of the 
issue, there appears to be agreement that a policy change is not required. The 
WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which it is 
currently used. Some members suggested that finding a way to make the 
Registrant e-mail address more readily available could be addressed as part of 
an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol.  This could be 
through updates to the existing protocol, modification of the Extensible 
Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet Registry Information 
Service (IRIS) protocol.  However, after review and discussion none of these 
options received broad agreement.

The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for 
providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future 
IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that 
would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been 
completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the 
current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the 
registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process 
is completed.

It should be noted that the Working Group will not take a final decision on 
which solution(s), if any, to recommendations to the GNSO Council before a 
thorough review of the comments received during the public comment period and 
final constituency statements has taken place.

Issue II
Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad 
agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. 
 However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether this should be an 
issue for GNSO policy making or for market solutions. It should be noted that 
the Working Group will not take a final decision on which solution(s), if any, 
to recommendations to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments 
received during the public comment period and final constituency statements has 
taken place.

Issue III
Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad 
agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling partial 
bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group believes 
that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing Bulk Transfer 
provisions, or through existing market solutions. It should be noted that the 
Working Group will not take a final decision on which solution(s), if any, to 
recommendations to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments 
received during the public comment period and final constituency statements has 
taken place.