FW: [gnso-irtpc] Your input requested - Ideal Process Change of Control
FYI From: <Dykes>, Roy <Roy.Dykes@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Roy.Dykes@xxxxxxxxxxx>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> Cc: "Dykes, Roy" <Roy.Dykes@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Roy.Dykes@xxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: FW: [gnso-irtpc] Your input requested - Ideal Process Change of Control Marika, Below are my responses. Also, I have accepted the Data Gathering Subteam call for next Thursday (5/3). Thanks, --Roy Dykes * Decide on terminology of the process (e.g. Change of control vs. change of registrant, losing / gaining registrant vs. old / new registrant) >Change of registrant; gaining / losing registrant. * Clarify / define difference between AuthInfo code and FOA in order to determine whether one or both could also serve as credentials in the case of a change of control (does somebody have a definition for either one) >FOA is simply the request or authorization to move a domain. AuthInfo code is >the actual code in the registrant’s account that proves they have control over >the domain. * Clarify role of 'thick' vs. 'thin' registry in relation to providing / setting AuthInfo code AND/OR being capable to verify authorization for a transfer (it is our understanding currently that each registry using EPP can use Auth Codes, regardless of being thick or thin – does anybody have information that would contradict this?) >Using AuthInfo codes to confirm a transfer is done regardless of the registry >being thick or thin. This is the case when transferring a domain between >registrars as well. * Determine what can be used as transfer authorization credentials, the idea is that these will need to be produced and transmitted to the registry/registrar(?) by the new registrant (PIN, password, string, code, AuthInfo code) in order to prove that the previous registrant has given their consent to a transfer out >To minimize LOE, AuthInfo and string should be sufficient; other attributes >may or may not be common across registrars and may drive additional coding >from both registrars and registries. * Who provides notification to old and new registrant – gaining registrar, registry? In the case of thin registries, should both registrars or only the gaining registrar make this determination (in case the change of control is combined with a change of registrar) >Registries should continue only communicating with registrars. It seems like >best business practices for the registrars involved to notify both gaining and >losing registrars and registrants. * Should this process be conducted with the same authorization credentials or separate ones from existing ones such as the AuthInfo code, or should a combined model be explored? >The less change there is for both registrars and registrants the better as >where this process overlaps/impacts registries might also drive change. From: owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:44 AM To: IRTPC Working Group Subject: FW: [gnso-irtpc] Your input requested - Ideal Process Change of Control Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please provide your feedback on the questions outlined below ahead of next week's IRTP Part C WG meeting (1 May). You'll find inserted below in brackets notes from yesterday's meeting. With best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> To: IRTPC Working Group <gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [gnso-irtpc] Your input requested - Ideal Process Change of Control Dear All, In the Tuesday WG meeting, the 'Ideal Process' Sub-Team presented a first rough outline of a possible process for change of control (see attached). Everyone is encouraged to review this outline and share it with their respective stakeholder groups / constituencies for input, if deemed appropriate. In addition to general comments, there are a couple of specific issues the sub-team would like to receive input on. These are highlighted in the attached document as 'note' and include the following: * Decide on terminology of the process (e.g. Change of control vs. change of registrant, losing / gaining registrant vs. old / new registrant) [Based on yesterday's WG meeting, there seems to be a preference to use 'change of registrant' and 'prior' and 'new' registrant', noting that there would be a need to describe these terms in further detail in the actual policy / rules] * Clarify / define difference between AuthInfo code and FOA in order to determine whether one or both could also serve as credentials in the case of a change of control (does somebody have a definition for either one) [See also Mikey's email in relation to this issue - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpc/msg00212.html] * Clarify role of 'thick' vs. 'thin' registry in relation to providing / setting AuthInfo code AND/OR being capable to verify authorization for a transfer (it is our understanding currently that each registry using EPP can use Auth Codes, regardless of being thick or thin – does anybody have information that would contradict this?) [See also Paul's email in relation to this issue - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpc/msg00211.html] * Determine what can be used as transfer authorization credentials, the idea is that these will need to be produced and transmitted to the registry/registrar(?) by the new registrant (PIN, password, string, code, AuthInfo code) in order to prove that the previous registrant has given their consent to a transfer out * Who provides notification to old and new registrant – gaining registrar, registry? In the case of thin registries, should both registrars or only the gaining registrar make this determination (in case the change of control is combined with a change of registrar) * Should this process be conducted with the same authorization credentials or separate ones from existing ones such as the AuthInfo code, or should a combined model be explored? [See also Mikey's email in relation to this issue - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpc/msg00212.html] Your comments would be appreciated ahead of next week's IRTP Part C WG meeting. Thanks, Marika Attachment:
IRTP -- Ideal Process v4.pdf |