ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtpd]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-irtpd] IRTP Part D Final Report 2nd Draft

  • To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] IRTP Part D Final Report 2nd Draft
  • From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:31:41 +0000

Hi Holly,

Thank you for your note. I assume you are referring to the first sentence
in the Executive Summary:

"The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) provides the policy framework
for domain name transfers between registrars, and, through the
recommendations of IRTP Part C, includes also provisions for transfers
between registrants.²

This descriptive opening sentence is supposed to refer to the transfer
policy - both for inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers. Our WG
was considering to introduce a transfer dispute policy for registrants -
which was eventually abandoned.

Would it be ok for you if the second sentence was amended an extended to
read: 

"IRTP also provides standardised requirements for inter-registar transfer
disputes - through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. Disputes that
involve inter-registrant transfers are not covered by this policy but this
PDP WG has addressed this issue and recommendations related to
inter-regstrant transfer disputes can be found in Section 4.2.3.²

Looking forward to hear what you and others think.

Best wishes,
Lars

PS: Your apology is of course noted - and thank you for the heads up!


 






On 16/08/2014 08:36, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Hi Lars (and everyone)
>
>Sorry I²ll be an apology for the next meeting.  The point I was making at
>the last meeting was with the first sentence.  We have considered
>allowing registrants into the dispute process as provided for in IRTP-C -
>and then rejected it.  What was decided instead what that, with a far
>clearer explanation of processes on the ICANN website, registrants should
>be able to better understand the process, including what the rules
>provide.  And when their registrar should take action (under the RAA) but
>doesn¹t, the registrant can to to ICANN compliance and ask that the
>registrar be required to take action.  The first sentence in the report
>seems to imply more.
>
>Thanks
>
>Holly
>
>On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:57 pm, Lars Hoffmann <Lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> <IRTP-DFinalReport_V2.doc>
>

Attachment: default.xml
Description: XML document

Attachment: default[1].xml
Description: XML document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy