RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] For review - Draft Request for Issues Report for IRTP Part B (deadline Wednesday 7 April at 20.00 UTC)

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

Due to resource issues at the Council level, we moved things around a
bit and as a result I'm now the Council liaison to this group. Not sure
if that's been made clear yet or not. 

Another option might be to just stick with group B, and perhaps include
only PDP C.18. Those all have the potential to affect registries as well
as registrars. With the upcoming RFP for new gTLDs it may be fitting to
address those together, and in as timely a fashion as possible. And one
of the questions that is raised from the work of PDP A could be
addressed with PDP B.7 (that issue seems to be implied there anyway).
 
Just a suggestion.


Tim  
 
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] For review - Draft Request for
Issues Report for IRTP Part B (deadline Wednesday 7 April at 20.00 UTC)
From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 07, 2009 4:32 pm
To: "Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>


All,

We really need your input on this proposed request for an Issues Report
for the next IRTP PDP. Is everyone comfortable with taking on all of
these issues at once? 

In my opinion, I think combining all of these issues will be a lot work
and take a long time. I recommend the next PDP just include issues # 2,
7 and 9 (the original proposals for PDP B, renumbered in Marika's PDF as
1, 2 & 3) plus the additional lock status questions (original PDP C
proposal #5 and the added question listed as #9 in the PDF). 

We need to hear your thoughts ASAP. Without some input, we can't claim
any group consensus and make a proposal to the Council.

Regards, P


________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 8:51 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] For review - Draft Request for Issues
Report for IRTP Part B (deadline Wednesday 7 April at 20.00 UTC)
Importance: High

Dear All,

As no further feedback has been received in relation to the email below,
I have prepared a draft request for an issues report for IRTP Part B
(see attached) incorporating all the issues currently contained in PDP
B, PDP C and the three issues that were added to PDP C from the denial
clarifications WG (2 issues) and the post-expiration domain name
recovery issues report (1 issue). In order for the GNSO Council to
consider this at its next meeting on 16 April, the request will need to
be submitted by Thursday 9 April at the latest. Please share your
comments and/or suggestions at the latest by Wednesday 7 April at 20.00
UTC on the mailing list. If no further comments are received, the
request will be submitted on 9 April to the GNSO Council.

With best regards,

Marika


On 3/24/09 8:57 PM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear All,

Following the discussion today on our call in which those present
proposed to group IRTP PDP B and C together in order to be more
efficient, please find below an overview of the issues listed in the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues - PDP Recommendations document of
19 Mar 2008. It should be noted that as a result of other policy
activities, one other issue has been added and another is likely to be
added to PDP C notably:

* That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads: No
payment for previous registration period (including credit-card
chargebacks) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for
previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet
expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into
"Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial
of transfer. Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues
PDP is initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be
included in the initial report to be done by the Staff for this
potential PDP.

* That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads: A
domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar
provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered
Name Holder to remove the lock status. Be suspended until such time as
PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is initiated. The results of work done by
the Draft Teams should be included in the initial report to be done by
the Staff for this potential PDP.' (from the motion on the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy
Development Process (PDP) adopted in September 2008)

* The issue of logistics of possible registrar transfer during the RGP
shall be incorporated into the charter of the IRTP Part C charter' (from
the motion on the initiation of a PDP on Post-Expiration Domain Name
Recovery which will normally be voted upon on the GNSO Council meeting
coming Thursday). It has been proposed that the actual consideration of
whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP should be
done within a Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, provided the
motion is adopted by the Council.

In addition, there is the recommendation made by this WG to 'to include
in future IRTP working groups the issue of 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' which
has not received a specific designation yet.

I consulted with the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chair and they confirmed that
the request for an issues report, which would be the starting point for
the next IRTP PDP would need to be approved by the GNSO Council as part
of the normal PDP procedure. However, a request would need to be
submitted as soon as possible in order to be considered at the next GNSO
Council meeting coming Thursday 26 March.

Please share your comments / suggestions with the list.

Best regards,

Marika

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

PDP B - Undoing IRTP Transfers

2. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name
should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see
also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm). 
 
7. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are
needed, especially  with regard to disputes between a Registrant and
Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the  Registrant can overrule the
AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of  the
registrar.
 
9. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near
a change of registrar.  The policy does not currently deal with change
of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. [Note that this
issue was previously worded as follows: "Whether special provisions are
needed for a change of registrant simultaneous to transfer or within a
period after transfer. The policy does not currently deal with change of
registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (CR 10.0)"  It is
believed by the working group members 
that the revised wording is more appropriate because it is highly
unlikely if not impossible for a registrar change and a registrant
change to happen simultaneously 
and because the dispute resolution problems associated with a registrant
change after a registrar change can continue for some time after the
registrar change.] 

PDP C - IRTP Operational Rule Enhancements

5. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding
use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should
not be applied). 
 
6. Whether provisions on time-limiting FOAs should be implemented to
avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar
sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is
locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain
name status, during which time the registrant or other registration
information may have changed. 
 
15. "Whether requirements should be in place for Registrars of Record to
send an FOA to the Registrant or Admin Contact".  [Notes: The first part
of this issue is retained, although rephrased as noted above; the
original wording was "Whether requirements should be in place for
Registrars of Record to send an FOA". The second part of 15 (reading:
"and/or receive the FOA back from Transfer Contact before acking a
transfer") is recommended for deletion because of past debates when this
was deemed to make it easier for uncooperative Registrars of Record to
delay or block a transfer desired by the registrant..] 

18. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that
registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.