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

["Michael Collins" <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also support this plan of action.

Best regards,
Michael Collins


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 7:22 AM
To: Diaz, Paul; 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)


Hi Paul,
I am in agreement with taking on only PDP B with the additional lock status
questions as described in your mail below.  There was a lot of consideration
and discussion involved in creating the 5 PDPs.  In my opinion, by taking on
only PDP B next (with the related questions) we are more likely to maintain
focus and complete it more timely.  Thanks.


-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
VeriSign Naming Services



-----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 5:33 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.