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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i share Paul's view.  i was a strong advocate of the position that we 
have a lot of overhead (time out for comments, tweaking final 
nuances, etc.) in our process and thought at the time that we could 
perhaps handle more questions at the same time.
but i, like many of the work-team members, am now subscribed to 2 
other working teams and agree that we're probably taking on too much 
in the next round.  i like Paul's idea of adding questions #5 and #9.
one nuance.  i *wouldn't* renumber the questions.  i know it looks 
weird in reports, but it's a lot easier to keep track of the 
questions across multiple PDPs if the questions have the same 
identifiers.  not a big deal, but we've had a fair amount of 
confusion in some earlier PDPs when we did that.
mikey

At 04:32 PM 4/7/2009, Diaz, Paul wrote:

> 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.