[gnso-irtpc] Mp3 / IRTP C PDP / 22 May 2012

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,


Please find the MP3 recording of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) C 
working group call held on Tuesday, 22nd May 2012 @ 1400 UTC on page:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-c-20120522-en.mp3

on page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar#may

The transcript will be posted on the same page.

The contents of the AC chat can be found at the bottom of this email.

Attendees:
Mike O'Connor - CBUC
James Bladel -co-chair
Simonetta Batteiger - RrSG
Jonathan Tenenbaum - RrSG
Rob Golding - RrSG
Michele Neylon - RrSG
Philip Corwin - CBUC
Bob Mountain - Rr SG
Kevin Erdman - IPC
Angie Graves - CBUC
Matt Serlin - RrSG
Avri Doria - co-Chair
Barbara Knight - RrSG
Chris Chaplow - CBUC

ICANN Staff:
Marika Konings
Nathalie Peregrine

Apologies
Paul Diaz - RrSg
Roy Dykes - RySG


IRTP C Members:
Alain Berranger
Simonetta Batteiger
James M. Bladel
Chris Chaplow
Phil Corwin
Paul Diaz
Roy Dykes
Avri Doria
Hago Dafalla
Kevin Erdman
Rob Golding
Volker Greimann
Oliver Hope
Zahid Jamil
Bob Mountain
Michele Neylon
Mike O'Connor
Matt Serlin
Jonathan Tenenbaum
Barbara Knight
Rob Villeneuve
Jacob Williams


Archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpc/
Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtppdpwg/Home


** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Kind regards,
Nathalie Peregrine for


GNSO Secretariat
gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>

AC Chat Room: 22 May 2012


 Marika Konings:IRTP Part C WG Meeting - 22 May 2012

  avri:be there shortly, still in previous call.

  Michele Neylon:35 seconds?

  Michele Neylon:how random

  Michele Neylon:he's cranky

  Michele Neylon:in relal life

  Michele Neylon:real life

  Michele Neylon:I am currently deleting 250k+ emails

  Bladel:I think most folks would describe me as the opposite of "cranky."

  Michele Neylon:this will make my mailbox a lot smaller (I hope!)

  Michele Neylon:not you

  Bladel:most days, anyway.

  Michele Neylon:Indiana Jones

  Michele Neylon:Harrison Ford

  Bob Mountain:Is there a way to archive emails so you don't lose them forever?

  Bladel:Yes, that is the only difference between me and Indiana Jones.

  Michele Neylon:Bob - they're rubbish - I don't need to them

  Bob Mountain:But your biographer may want them for posterity

  Michele Neylon:Bob - I doubt if he'd care about a Pakistani SEO spammer 
sending junk to sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Rob Golding has joined the AC room

  Marika Konings:Please note that the document up on the screen has not been 
reviewed yet by the Ideal Process sub-team, but aims to capture the discussions 
from yesterday's meeting

  Marika Konings:for insertion into the Initial Report

  Rob Golding (Othello):it's already mandataed by some registries

  avri:nit: do we need to substitute the new terms for gaining and losing

  Simonetta Batteiger:of course... ;-)

  Simonetta Batteiger:we can agree to disagree...

  Marika Konings:Maybe this could be one of the items that is called out for 
public comment? Like 'some in the WG support position X, while others support 
position 'Y', further community input is requested prior to the WG finalizing 
its recommendation.'

  Marika Konings:additional rationale for either position could be included to 
explain each position

  Simonetta Batteiger:Marika: this is exactly what I think should be done!

  Simonetta Batteiger:and if we can find any way to engage some "users of the 
process" - people who buy domain names e.g. that would be ideal

  Simonetta Batteiger:it's just really hard to reach them!

  Michele Neylon:buy or register?

  Simonetta Batteiger:both should be equally simple to do

  avri:Please frame all pending comments in an email.

  Simonetta Batteiger:as a user experience...

  Simonetta Batteiger:agree with Bob!

  Simonetta Batteiger:which I'm sure we can! :-)

  Michele Neylon:the proxy concept makes 100% sense to me

  Bladel:I like the proxy idea.  But implementing it might be a challenge.

  Michele Neylon:Bob - what I meant was that you can work this stuff out 
outside ICANN, so it's just matter of getting it to work with ICANN

  Simonetta Batteiger:we can brainstorm this some more...

  Bob Mountain:Got you Michele, understood.

 Michele Neylon:so I'm agreeing with you Bob :)

  Bob Mountain:Expand

  Michele Neylon:what was the question?

  Simonetta Batteiger:should FOAs be time limited was the question I think...

  Chris Chaplow:Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization 
(FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out.

  Marika Konings:It could be separated into rationale and recommendation?

  Mike O'Connor:i would like another bite at the apple before we go into the 
initial report -- i still disagree with this recommendation

  Mike O'Connor:as a  consumer/registrant i find this very concerning

  Simonetta Batteiger:Mikey: whatif you had choice?

  Mike O'Connor:remember my whole "conflating" rant -- we're piling too many 
meanings on to this thing

  Simonetta Batteiger:if you want to give upfront and premanent permission for 
transfers, you can, if you don't want that you pick to not have that...

  Mike O'Connor:i would pile this into the "proxy" and let registrars "roll 
over" FOAs for their customers, rather than leaving them open indefinitely

  Simonetta Batteiger:what do you mean with "roll over"?

  Mike O'Connor:auto-renew the FOA

  Bob Mountain:You mean the settig for FoA, one setting expires and one set 
doesn't

  Simonetta Batteiger:isn't that the same as permanent?

  Bob Mountain:Two FoA states.

  Mike O'Connor:all would expire, but the proxy registrar would renew it

  Mike O'Connor:i want to support Barbara's point -- FOA is specific to "a 
transfer" -- the aftermarket could mask this with their "proxy" role,  but 
leave this protection in place for the normal registrant.

  Simonetta Batteiger:Barbara/Mikey: I see this as a symptom and creative way 
to attempt trying to make the existing policy work

  Mike O'Connor:or bypass its protections

  Simonetta Batteiger:we are talking about this whole entire issue because we 
all know it doesn't 100% fit for the situation of a sale where registrant and 
registrar change at the same time

  Simonetta Batteiger:I don't think about it this way because the current 
registrant has given their expressed permission to bypass it at the point of 
sale

  Mike O'Connor:but not forever.  only for a period of time

  Mike O'Connor:until the transfer is done

  Simonetta Batteiger:for as long as they wish to list their name for sale

  Simonetta Batteiger:and want a hands-off fast transfer experience

  Simonetta Batteiger:our sellers are given that choice

  Barbara Knight-RySG:i will weigh in on the list as i still have some concerns 
relating to this one

  Barbara Knight-RySG:concerns relating to recommendation 1 that is

  Simonetta Batteiger:need to drop off in 3 min...

  Mike O'Connor:this is the crux of the disagreement -- what is the "default" 
mode?  i would lobby for the default position favoring the "normal" registrant 
rather than domain investors

  Simonetta Batteiger:don't disagree with that Mikey, but I want to maintain 
the option for registrants to choose something else

  Simonetta Batteiger:if they wish to

  Mike O'Connor:yep -- i'm fine if domainers want to sign away their 
protections.

  Mike O'Connor:but leave them in place for the others