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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nice work Marika on the new text.  I have a few comments.

 

Line 101:  suggest we change This option would not change the current
situation

                To - This might be possible without changing the current
situation

 

106:  typo "recommend"

 

Issue II has this language --  whether this should be an issue for GNSO
policy making or for market solutions.  So, should we request an opinion of
ICANN Counsel as to whether or not it is within scope of GNSO policy to
suggest or require authentication methods, generally or specifically?  I
think this question has already been answered when we launched the PDP --
but it seems we should get it clarified somehow?  Otherwise I think this
language should come out.

 

Thanks,

Mike R.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:55 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Updated concluding statements and revised
initial report posted

 

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_jun
08). 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.