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