[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Update from GNSO Council Meeting

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The IRTP Part A motion was briefly discussed at the last GNSO Council meeting 
(26 March 2009), but it was decided to defer any vote on the motion to the next 
meeting (16 April 2009) in order to allow Council members to review the motion 
and final report in further detail. It was agreed that any questions that would 
arise in the meantime would be shared with the WG for discussion and feedback. 
One question was raised on the call by Chuck Gomes, who has kindly put it in 
writing, for review by the WG regarding the recommendation to request an 
assessment of IRIS:

'1) It will be a very significant and costly effort for registries and 
registrars to implement IRIS; 2) would it even make sense to do that just for 
the exchange of registrant contact info; 3) if not, then does it even make 
sense to do the cost estimates?  Of course, if the answer to 2) is yes, then 
maybe we should get cost estimates now.  If getting the cost estimates isn't 
going to change anything in the near term, then why get them because they may 
be different in the future.'

Please feel free to share your views on the mailing list.

REMINDER: please provide your input on the next IRTP PDP (see previous email 
attached). In order to move this forward, it will be helpful to get a request 
for an issues report to the Council in time for its next meeting (9 April - one 
week before the next Council meeting).

Best regards,

Marika

--- Begin Message ---

• To: "Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Next IRTP PDP - overview of issues in PDP B and C
• From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:57:16 -0700

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.

--- End Message ---