RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Chat from today's call Transfers and RGP

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

I'd like to address the subject of transfers during the RGP process.  Some
of you know who I am and that I've been building registry systems for about
10 years from now.  I've founded and managed all forms of operational and
development groups, as well as run product development/product management
over those years.  Before that I built highly available systems for brokers
and banks, founding and running their technology groups. I am not a lawyer,
but I work with them every day in the practical execution of policy and
regulatory requirements.

I point all this out because I believe I have some credibility in saying
that from a point of operational practicality,  restoring a domain and
transferring a domain should be two separate actions.  Why? A successful
transfer involves cooperative activity between two registrars on a
non-expired domain.  This is why a domain is restored to a non-expired state
during RGP process, so that regular registry events such as transfers can
continue.

Without the cooperation of the Registrar of record, recovering a domain
during RGP or transferring one is not feasible. When a registry restores a
domain following a request to do so by the registrar of record, it restores
that domain to the state it was in before the name was deleted.  That state
is often not reflective of the original registrant of record.  Contact
information is often changed following expiration prior to RGP.
Additionally the registrar can and likely has updated the authinfo code (the
passphrase required for a requesting registrar to initiate a transfer).  

 Allowing transfers during an RGP restore would have to include the
cooperation of the registrar on record unless ordered by an authority.  The
registrar is the one that has to process the Restore command.  To allow an
irrefutable  transfer command from another registrar, without first a
restore command during RGP, is paramount to actively removing the
responsibility of that domain from the existing registrar on record without
due process.  Domains in dispute have UDRP (UDRRP) and other means through
local laws, regulations, and Court orders to insight changes of the
registrar of record.    If a registrar is such ordered, they can trigger the
restore command and pass the authinfo code to whomever the relevant
authority has authorized to take control of the domain - this will allow the
winning party to proceed with a transfer request.  All this is supported
with EXISTING functionality and processes.

I'm afraid I fail to see what allowing transfers during RGP solves, or what
benefits it offers.  It is a false assumption that a transfer can be
initiated during RGP to bypass the control of the registrar of record
without the support of due process.  If due process is applied to order a
change of the registrar of record, the existing functionality can currently
support that order.

With the above in mind, transfers during RGP are out of scope for this PDP.

Having said all that, I remain open to hearing any benefits that can be
practically applied that I may have missed or overlooked.  


Sincerely,

Michael Young
 

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: November-16-10 3:55 PM
To: PEDNR
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Chat from today's call


Marika Konings: PEDNR WG Meeting- 16 November 2010 Alan Greenberg: Waiting
to get on...
Jeffrey Eckhaus: I am on Adobe but will be  5 minutes late to call Berry
Cobb: At the very least, you can talk about ATRT during one of those 4 other
sessions.
Gisella Gruber-White: Jeffrey Eckhaus has joined the call
CLO: here is the ALAQC  schedule
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Cartagena+2010+-+Meetin
gs+Schedule
CLO: ALAC
Paul Diaz: we'll come back to # of days later, yes?
CLO: I would assume so Paul
CLO: I'd want to for SURE
Paul Diaz: lol
Paul Diaz: understood
CLO: But it is not Out Of Scope either IMO Gisella Gruber-White: Mason Cole
joined the call Alan Greenberg: Welcome Mason!
Mikey O'Connor: are those birds in the background?
Mikey O'Connor: it's snowing here.  we kill da birdies and eat them Paul
Diaz: yum Sivasubramanian M: Why are we not discussing the number of days?
ron wickersham: Siva, we will discuss number of days later.  to hard to
cover at this time.
CLO: They are Galahs  here in Aus  to eat them the story goes  you boil them
with a rock  when rock tender throw  bird away and eat rock...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galah
Sivasubramanian M: Thanks Ron
Sivasubramanian M: two issues here:
Sivasubramanian M: 1. RGP should be a consensus policy Sivasubramanian M: 2)
Transfer between Registrars shoud be allowed mandatorily Sivasubramanian M:
and transfer shoudl be an easy process Sivasubramanian M: not a complex
process Paul Diaz: no transfers during RGP - totally out of scope for this
WG Sivasubramanian M: But in a situation where the Registry offeres RGP, but
not the Registrar, then the Registrant is trapped, so tansfer would be a way
out Paul Diaz: no, it wouldn't (at least in a thin registry), given such
cases likely will involve domains with changed DNS records - and the
Registry won't be able to vet the ''RAE'' bona fides Paul Diaz: regardless,
Transfer Policy changes are well outside the scope of this PDP
Sivasubramanian M: If transfer constraints affect the ability of a
Registrant's ability to recover the domain name, then it is to be deemed
well within the purview of this workign gorup to discuss Transfer Policy
changes.
Sivasubramanian M: What is the idea of exceptions to what ought to be a
consensus and universal  measure?
CLO: Windows  Reasinable ones ;-)  are worthy of exploration IMO
CLO: Reasonable (sorry typo)
Mikey O'Connor: Windows works for me too Paul Diaz: Sub 1-yr terms are
theoretical, no?
Sivasubramanian M: whether or not icann has auditing capability, if a
process is recommended for registrars to adopt, why don't you recommend
tthat it be implemented ina transparent manner?
Sivasubramanian M: a simple solution woudl be suggest that Regisrars pay
attention to their bounced messages James Bladel: I think the terms of art
are ''in-band'' and ''out-of-band''
James Bladel: Note:  don't pull history with Mikey & Alan in the room. :)
Mikey O'Connor: young whippersnappers...
James Bladel: But I don't like using ''push/pull'' terms either, so I'll
leave it at that.
James Bladel: Maybe ''Active'' / ''Passive''?
James Bladel: Klondike-Five.
James Bladel: Canadian Army Issued.  Double Moose Power. :) Jeffrey Eckhaus:
I need to drop off. Have to get the overseas operator and mae a person to
person call Jeffrey Eckhaus: make James Bladel: station to station?
CLO: Now  your talking James  my Emerency Services and Military days all
just came back =>  Over ;-) James Bladel: :) Mikey O'Connor: KLondike-five =
555
CLO: Code 20 then :-)
Mikey O'Connor: good for directory-info calls in North America Mikey
O'Connor: send the chat this time for sure.  most excellent.
CLO: Bye all