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

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Lars

And yes, I was referring to the descriptive opening sentence, and yes, I like 
your rewording.

HOlly
On 17 Aug 2014, at 12:31 am, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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>
>> 
> 
> <default.xml><default[1].xml>