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

["Trachtenberg, Marc H." <MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Apologies - I was in court this morning.  I concur with your assessment that 
combining all of these issues may be biting off more than we can chew, and that 
it might be more prudent (and realistic) to limit the PDP to 2, 7, and 9.


Marc H. Trachtenberg
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703
D: +1 (312) 558-7964
M: +1 (773) 677-3305      
F: +1 (312) 558-5700
http://www.winston.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:33 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Marika Konings
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)
Importance: High


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.




The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if 
this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. 
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. 
Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
******************************************************************************
Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot 
be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.