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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika and Group:

My only suggested edit would be to add the phrase "to facilitate
transfers" at the end of the first sentence in Issue I.  So, it would
read:

"The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in
which it is currently used to facilitate transfers."

Reasoning:  Without clarifying specifically how the WHOIS issue impacts
operational concerns surrounding transfers, I am concerned that public
comments will be submitted on the WHOIS issue as a whole, including
areas which do not affect transfers.

Thanks, and my apologies if this affects any of the language in our
Initial Report.

J.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Proposed text for public comment forum
and announcement
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, January 05, 2009 4:12 am
To: "Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>

 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 tomorrowâs 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 ânewâ 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 âspoofingâ, and (3) to consider whether
the IRTP should include provisions for âpartial bulk transfersâ
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 â 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 ânewâ 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 âspoofingâ, and (3) to consider whether
the IRTP should include provisions for âpartial bulk transfersâ
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].