<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-irtpc] Draft Language: ccTLD Investigation & Findings
- To: "IRTPC Working Group" <gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-irtpc] Draft Language: ccTLD Investigation & Findings
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 15:53:23 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Team:<br><br>Please review the language below, which is
my first draft of a narrative on our work comparing "Change of Control"
functions in the ccTLD space. Appreciate any and all edits /
comments.</div><div><br>Thanks--</div><div><br></div><div>J.</div><div>_________________________________</div><div><span><span
style="clear: both;" id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><span
style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;"
mce_style="font-family:Arial;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;"><div>Charter
Question A tasks the IRTP-C working group to "[investigate] if<span> there are
any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a
best practice for the gTLD space". To conduct this investigation, the
IRTP-C working group polled those members who have extensive experience
conducting this Change of Registrant operation in various ccTLDs, and a number
of the WG members also met with the ccNSO on March (?) in Costa
Rica.</span></div><div><span><br></span></div><div><span>In general, the WG
finds that there is significant variety in the degree of support for Change of
Registrant in ccTLDs. Some ccTLD operators require the Registrant to
initiate this process with the registry directly, while others require the
Registrar to conduct the change. In some instances, authorization
was obtained by the Registry, in other the Registrar was
responsible. Additionally, because some ccTLDs have eligibility
requirements, there were differences in whether the new Registrant's
eligibility was confirmed as a part of this process, or external to
it.</span></div><div><span><br></span></div><div><span>The relative ease of
use for each ccTLD Change of Registrant process was assessed, with some
scoring high (.NL, .MX, .DE), others rated as more difficult (.EU, .FR, .UK)
and others identified as very difficult (.BR, .KR,
.EG).</span></div><div><span><br></span></div><div><span>Based upon this
investigation, the WG finds that: (Points for
discussion)</span></div><div><span> * The ccTLD space contains a variety
of examples for Change of Registrant procedures, with the majority supporting
this function. <br></span></div><div><span> * ccTLDs vary on whether
this is a Registry- or Registrar-centric
function.<br></span></div><div><span> * Due to the concept of "thin"
gTLDs, the Registry cannot exclusively control a gTLD equivalent
process. The registrar must be involved or exclusively manage the
function.<br></span></div><div><span> * Eligibility tests, which
may be applicable to sTLDs or new "Community TLDs", can be a part of this
process or a stand alone procedure. For ccTLDs that test eligibility, the
process was did not differ from those used for initial
registrations.<br></span></div><div><span> * Some ccTLDs notify the old
and new registrant, while others require confirmation or authorization.
</span></div><div><span> * One ccTLD had recently changed its process to
offer more flexibility, and this change has been positively received by
registrars and registrants. <br></span></div><div><span>*
(Others?)</span></div><div><span><br></span></div></span></span></span><br></div></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|