ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Proposed text for public comment forum and announcement

  • To: "'Marika Konings'" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Proposed text for public comment forum and announcement
  • From: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:34:44 +0100

It is Ok with me.

All the best and Happy New Year.

 

Sébastien Bachollet

Président Isoc France

 <mailto:sebastien.bachollet@xxxxxxx> sebastien.bachollet@xxxxxxx

 <http://www.egeni.org/> www.egeni.org

 <http://www.isoc.fr/> www.isoc.fr

 

 

De : owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Marika Konings
Envoyé : lundi 5 janvier 2009 11:13
À : Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Proposed text for public comment forum and
announcement

 

Dear All,

Best wishes to all of you!

Please find below the proposed text for the public comment forum and
announcement relating to the upcoming publication of the IRTP Part A Initial
Report. Please feel free to send your comments / edits to the mailing list
for discussion. The aim is to review and finalise the text on tomorrow?s
conference call.

With best regards,

Marika

================

Public Comment Forum

Open: To be confirmed

Closed: To be confirmed 

IRTP Part A PDP Initial Report

Explanation: The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a
series of five planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the
existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm>. The IRTP Part A PDP
concerns three ?new? issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of
registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for
including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests
and avoid ?spoofing?, and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include
provisions for ?partial bulk transfers? between registrars. A Working Group,
launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its deliberations on 5
August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. The Working Group is
inviting your comments on the Initial Report which can be found here
[include link]. 

Staff member responsible: Marika Konings

Announcement

Public Comments invited on the Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy ? Part A Policy Development Process

The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five
planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm>. The IRTP Part A PDP
concerns three ?new? issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of
registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for
including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests
and avoid ?spoofing?, and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include
provisions for ?partial bulk transfers? between registrars. 

A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its
deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. It
should be noted that the Working Group will not make a final decision on
which solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough
review of the comments received during the public comment period and in the
final constituency statements has taken place. Following its deliberations,
the Working Group has made some preliminary conclusions for each issue,
which it hopes will inspire further comments from the public as well as the
constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as follows:

Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address
data available to one another?
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. 

Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic
authentication?
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
these options should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be
left to market solutions. 

Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling
partial bulk transfers between registrars?
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.

As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public
comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for
redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the
GNSO Council for further action. 

The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete
Initial Report [include link] before submitting comments. 

Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to [insert email address].

Public comments received can be accessed at [insert link].

The deadline for submission of comments is [to be decided].



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>