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

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

Hi Marika,
Very nice work.  Is the following correct in each section:
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.
or should it read:
It should be noted that the Working Group will not make a final decision
on which solution(s), if any, to recommend [DELETE - ations] to the GNSO
Council before a thorough review of the comments received during the
public comment period and final constituency statements has taken place.

Thanks.
 
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
VeriSign Naming Services


 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:55 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
_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.