Re: [gnso-irtpc] Your input requested - Ideal Process Change of Control

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Reminder

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
To: IRTPC Working Group <gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx>>
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