[gnso-irtpc] Mp3 / IRTP C PDP / 29 May 2012

[Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next  Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) C working group call is 
scheduled on Tuesday 5 June 2012 at 1400 UTC.

Please find the MP3 recording of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) C 
working group call held on Tuesday, 29nd May 2012 @ 1400 UTC on page:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-c-20120529-en.mp3<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
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Philip Corwin - CBUC
Bob Mountain - Rr SG
Angie Graves – CBUC
Matt Serlin – RrSG
Avri Doria – co-Chair
Barbara Knight – RrSG
Chris Chaplow - CBUC
Roy Dykes – RySG

ICANN Staff:
Marika Konings
Nathalie Peregrine
Glen de Saint Gery

Apologies
Paul Diaz - RrSg
Kevin Erdman - IPC
Alain Berranger - NPOC


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,
Gisella Gruber for


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

AC Chat Room: 29 May 2012


  Marika Konings:IRTP Part C WG Meeting - 29 May 2012
  Bob Mountain:Conference call is saying call starts at 3:00PM CT?
  Simonetta Batteiger:strange....
  Bob Mountain:Are you guys dialed in?
  Simonetta Batteiger:we're here...
  Simonetta Batteiger:oh sorry, hung up by accident...
  Simonetta Batteiger:dialing back in...
  Bob Mountain:I'm in, tried a new operators and off you go....
  Roy Dykes - RySG:i got the same message as Bob
  Roy Dykes - RySG:hoping to get a different operator
  Gisella Gruber-White:Roy has joined the call
  Gisella Gruber-White:Jonathan has joined the call
  avri:a visual hum?
  Michele Neylon:majority supports it
  avri:seems strong support with significant oppostion
  Michele Neylon:in ICANN-ese
  Michele Neylon:yes
  Gisella Gruber-White:Angie Graves has joined the call
  Simonetta Batteiger:there is a choice and compromise position as well that is 
not described here...
  Simonetta Batteiger:this does not need to be one or the other only, it could 
also be something you could give registrants a choice for...
  Mikey O'Connor:makes sense to me
  Mikey O'Connor:ok with deleting it
  Bladel:Same here = Delete.
  Mikey O'Connor:maybe this goes on the "we need to think more" pile
  Simonetta Batteiger:I think Michele's point was the opposite... I heard him 
say that he feels it may be the only valid field...
  Philip Corwin:Hello, finally in. On the 60 day question, I lean toward 60-day 
lock being the default position to protect unsophisticated registrant against 
harm, but allowing the registrant to opt out if they are a more sophisticated 
domain investor and are concerned about negative effect on liquidity.
  Michele Neylon:the email is the easiest vector to grabbing  a domain
  Michele Neylon:I've had to temporarily register domain names in order to get 
EPP keys sent to clients
  Mikey O'Connor:so maybe there's a notion that there's a certain number of 
fields that need to change
  Michele Neylon:Mikey - that might work
  Mikey O'Connor:complicated rule to write
  Michele Neylon:I agree
  Chris Chaplow:Agree with Jonathon
  Simonetta Batteiger:but then if it's in combination with one of the others, 
you might as well leave it as one of the others...
  Simonetta Batteiger:cause logically that's the same...
  Mikey O'Connor:you and James are both smarter about boolean logic than Mikey
  Mikey O'Connor::-)
  Simonetta Batteiger:;-)
  Bladel:avri is very faint...
  Simonetta Batteiger:Phil actually placed some nice wordingon this in the chat 
box above...
  Mikey O'Connor:agreed.  nice job Phil
  Mikey O'Connor:nice toilet flush!
  Bladel:lol.
  avri:I don't understand what the implications are of Bob's additona caveat.
  Philip Corwin:Let me clarify -- I'm not advocating having registrars 
implement a sophsiticated investor test/standard similar to US securities law 
-- I'm for providing a standard notice to all registrants of the risks of 
opting out and then let them do so if they wish to.
  avri:I see Mikey's point on the risk, but do not see why this would be a good 
thing.
  Mikey O'Connor:where did that "pre authorized sale" language at the end come 
from?
  Mikey O'Connor:Bob?  is that your stuff?
  Bob Mountain:Blue was me yes
  Simonetta Batteiger:new hand
  Mikey O'Connor:gotcha Bob, thaanks.
  Michele Neylon:trading domain names is not something 99% of our clients needs 
to do ever
  Michele Neylon:our clients need domain security
  Mikey O'Connor:who's got their line unmuted?
  Michele Neylon:and protection from hijacking
  Michele Neylon:not me
  Michele Neylon:I've got the mic off here
  Mikey O'Connor:lotta noises
  Bladel:Thats perfect, thanks! :)
  Simonetta Batteiger:I agree..
  Mikey O'Connor:Avrri's right
  Simonetta Batteiger:i would not agree with this when the qualifications are 
not there...
  Simonetta Batteiger:I do have a hard stop...
  Bladel:Hopefully this recommendation is less controversial....
  Bladel:...except for Registreis, perhaps. :)
  Simonetta Batteiger:I like Barbara's language...
  Mikey O'Connor:i'm OK w/Paubara's language
  Mikey O'Connor:and barabara's language??
  Michele Neylon:what am I voting on?
  Simonetta Batteiger:I don't read it that way...
  Simonetta Batteiger:it adds that's you can also have your own, as long as 
you're also publishing an IANA one...
  Bob Mountain:Maybe need to integrate new wording and circulate for comments?
  Barbara Knight-RySG:I don't believe that the intent was to restrict new 
registries from also using proprietary ids
  Mikey O'Connor:registries have to use IANA ID, and have the option to publish 
proprietary ones
  Simonetta Batteiger:need to drop off...
  avri:Mikey's langauge seems to cover it.
  Philip Corwin:Q: Why do registries decide to use proprietary IDs rather than 
just the IANA one?
  Michele Neylon:I'm confused
  avri:becasue they have internal processes built around the proprietary
  Bob Mountain:Me too
  Bob Mountain:Confused
  Michele Neylon:what am I being asked to vote on?
  avri:i like the idea of evertyone moving ti using IANA ID with the notions 
that they can also use proproietary should it be worth their while.
  Mikey O'Connor:The WG recommends that new Registries standardize on IANA IDs. 
The WG also recommends that existing Registries that currently use proprietary 
IDs can continue to do so -- but must publish the IANA ID in addition to their 
prorietary one
  Barbara Knight-RySG:I agree with Avri's comment above.  I have to jump off as 
I have another meeting.
  avri:i.e. include Mikey's language as one option
  avri:we got close
  avri:i think we should stil push for the publishing deadline.
  Bob Mountain:Simonetta is off the call
  avri:do we nee dto schedule an extraordinary call for Friday?
  avri:ok maybe thrusday?
  avri:But i think we should publish were we are by the deadline. with warts 
and all.