ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-trans-wg] Prioritization Template

  • Subject: Re: [gnso-trans-wg] Prioritization Template
  • From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:09:19 -0500

Apologies for the lack of context associated with this email. There was another message that was sent prior to this one that doesn't seem to have made it to the list.

So here goes again! :-)

First up, there were some mistakes in the schedule that I'd distributed earlier - the days and dates don't line up. Here is a revised, corrected schedule.

Monday November 5, 2007 - Each cttee member will have completed their self-review of the document: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf . Everyone should also familiarize themselves with the other recent domain portability related policy documents found attached here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03895.html

Sunday November 11, 2007 - Close of cttee comments and questions on working group resource documents. Questions, comments or concerns should be forwarded to the cttee mailing list for consideration prior to this time.

Sunday November 18, 2007 - Deadline for submission of respective prioritized issues list. A template will be forwarded to the cttee prior to November 9, 2007.

Tuesday November 20, 2007 - Integrated prioritzation list circulated back to the prioritization cttee based on inputs received from cttee by November 18.

Monday November 26, 2007 - Conference call to finalize integrated priority list prior to distribution back to Council.

Friday November 30, 2007 - Committee closure.

Regarding the prioritization template - please simply fill them out and return them to me offlist. I will track who has forwarded me the template and send a list out this coming Friday letting you know whose I have received (which should help us avoid losing submissions while at the same time keeping list traffic to a minimum).

If you have any questions - please let me know. Sorry for the disjointed nature of the mails! It looks like the list is working fine again now.


On 12-Nov-07, at 2:58 PM, Ross Rader wrote:

Please rank the following issue #'s in order of the priority that the GNSO should address the questions from a policy development perspective. You may choose to prioritize this list based on whatever criteria you wish (i.e. "relevance to the commercial community", "efficiencies for providers", "alphabetical" :), etc.)

1. _
2. _
3. _
4. _
5. _
6. _
7. _
8. _
9. _
10. _
11. _
12. _
13. _
14. _
15. _
16. _
17. _

Please simply use the letter of the question in the table above. For example:

1. S
2. Q
3. B
4. J
5. H
6. F
7. I
8. P
9. D
10. E
11. C
12. A
13. R
14. N
15. O
16. M
17. L

Issues for prioritization:

a. Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and
implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on
registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf).

b. Whether review of registry-level dispute decisions is needed (some
complaints exist about inconsistency).

c. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are
needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and
Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the
AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the

d. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP on how to
handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred.

e. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available
to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute

f. Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for
registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options
available to registrants.

g. Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in FOA) due to security concerns on use of email addresses
(potential for hacking or spoofing).

h. Whether provisions on time-limiting FOAs should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the
registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name
status, during which time the registrant or other registration information
may have changed.

i. Whether requirements should be in place for Registrars of Record to send
an FOA, and/or receive the FOA back from Transfer Contact before
acking a transfer.

j. Whether there could be a way for registrars to make Registrant Email
Address data available to one another.  Currently there is no way of
automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and/ or complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant
can overrule the Admin Contact.

k. Whether additional provisions relating to transfer of registrations involving
various types of Whois privacy services should be developed as part of
the policy.

l. Whether additional requirements regarding Whois history should be
developed, for change tracking of Whois data and use in resolving

m. Whether special provisions are needed for change of registrant
simultaneous to transfer or within a period after transfer. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking

n. Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy.

o. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should
be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see
also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm).

p. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries
use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

q. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding
use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/ should not
be applied).

r. Whether registrants should be able to retrieve authInfo codes from third
parties other than the registrar.

s. Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling “partial bulk transfers” between registrars – that is, transfers involving a number of
names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar.

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy