[gnso-irtpd] Monday's agenda

[Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
Please find below the draft agenda for Monday's meeting as well as a draft 
summary of last week's call on Charter Question C and also a draft work plan as 
discussed.
Best wishes,
Lars


1. Roll Call / SOI Updates

2. Discussion on draft work plan (see below)

3. Discussion on draft summary on Question C (see below)

4. If time: Revision of previous discussion and draft recommendations on 
Charter Question B

5. Next steps / confirm next meeting


----

Draft Work Plan:

The submission deadline for work documents for the Singapore meeting is Monday 
3 March 2014 - this will give the Group eight more meetings, including 13 
January and 3 March if a draft Initial Report is to be submitted n time for the 
Singapore Meeting.

Considering that Charter question b (multiple transfers) and c (registrant 
access to TDRP) are still in need of discussion, here a proposed time table:

13 January: Discussion on Charter Question B

20 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C

27 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C

By the end of January a draft Initial Report circulated by Staff

03 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial 
Report

10 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial 
Report

17 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial 
Report

24 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial 
Report

03 March: Signing off on Draft Initial Report

24-27 March: ICANN Meeting Singapore:

7 April: First meting after Singapore; publication of Initial Report and open 
Public Comment

--
Summary based on Monday's discussion of Charter Question C (Registrant access 
to TDRP)


The Working Group discussed at length the issue of whether or not to modify the 
TDRP to allow for a registrant-initiated TDRP.

As part of these discussions, the Working Group has drawn up a number of 
scenarios, in which registrants have suffered an unwanted loss of control over 
a domain name and for which, in the Groups' opinion, the current TDRP does not 
provide adequate solutions.

In addition, the Working Group has also consulted with ICANN Compliance to 
understand better the circumstances under which Compliance can and does act 
based on existing TDRP provisions.

In summary, the Group agrees that, as long as there is just one registrant who 
has a complaint concerning an inter-registrar transfer (the kind of transfer 
that the policy was designed for) then the current TDRP rules are sufficient 
and provide adequate solutions - via ICANN Compliance and/or Dispute resolution 
providers.

The issues and scenarios that the Group has found and discussed, however, lie 
outside the current scope of the TDRP, because these scenarios involve two or 
more registrants disputing an inter-registrant transfer. It is these 
circumstances that require new consensus policy. However, the Group feels that 
the drafting of such a policy goes beyond the scope of this group and in fact 
beyond the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy that is the focus of this PDP. 
Therefore, the Working Group calls for an Issue Report with the view to 
creating an inter-registant transfer dispute policy. Recommendation #1 of the 
IRTP Part C Final Report that lays out the adoption of a change of registrant 
consensus policy could serve as a starting point for this undertaking.