RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Draft Priorities List

["Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No objection from me. 


-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer
VeriSign Information Services
bsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct: 703.948.3343
Mobile: 703.622.1071
Fax:  703.421.4873

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA  20166


Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or 
Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may 
not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent 
of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received this e-mail 
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply 
e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy.  Thank you.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 6:04 AM
To: Thomas Keller
Cc: <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Draft Priorities List


We can talk about it on the call. The data was collected on the premise that it 
was just coming to me, but I have no problem sharing the data if no one objects.

---
Warm regards,

-Ross





Sent from my iPhone



On Nov 23, 2007, at 4:51 AM, "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Hi Ross,
>
> would it be possible that you send us the aggregated list of the  
> original
> responses. That would make it easier to
> understand your CT calculations.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tom
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> ] Im
> Auftrag von Ross Rader
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. November 2007 21:59
> An: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: [gnso-trans-wg] Draft Priorities List
>
>
> All - here is the draft list of priorities based on our respective
> submissions. On our call, we will need to discuss whether or not  
> this needs
> any fine tuning and how we should deal with those items that we have  
> given a
> relatively low consensus priority (scoring a CT of 10 and higher, 10  
> being
> the median of the scores).
>
> If you have any questions about the methodology, please let me know  
> prior to
> the meeting as I would like to use our time on the call to focus on  
> the
> substance of our report to the council and not the processes used.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> -ross
>
>
> DRAFT
>
> This prioritized list shows the mean response of each of the  
> participants of
> the IRDX (InterRegistrar Domain Transfer) Policy prioritization  
> subcommittee
> of the GNSO Council. This working group has been tasked with  
> recommending
> policy development priorities to the GNSO Council in this subject  
> area.
> These results were calculated by soliciting the priorities of each  
> of the
> participants and then calculating the median response, or "central  
> tendency"
> (CT). Responses were received from:
>
> Barbara Steel
> Tom Keller
> Stacy King
> Christian Curtis
> Mike O'Connor
> Paul McGrady
> Tim Ruiz
> Pam Miller
> Ross Rader
>
> Prioritized list of policy development questions re: IRDX
>
> 1. 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. (CT5.0)
>
> 2. 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).
> (CT6.0)
>
> 3. 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). (CT6.0)
>
> 4. 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
> submissions. (CT7.0)
>
> 5. 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). (CT8.0)
>
> 6. 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.(CT9.0)
>
> 7. 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
> registrar. (CT9.0)
>
> 8. d. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP on
> how to
> handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred. (CT10.0)
>
> 9. 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
> cases. (CT10.0)
>
> 10. n. Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient
> or if additional
> provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the
> policy. (CT10.0)
>
> 11. r. Whether registrants should be able to retrieve authInfo codes
> from third
> parties other than the registrar. (CT12.0)
>
> 12. 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.
> (CT12.0)
>
> 13. k. Whether additional provisions relating to transfer of
> registrations involving
> various types of Whois privacy services should be developed as part of
> the policy. (CT13.0)
>
> 14. b. Whether review of registry-level dispute decisions is needed
> (some
> complaints exist about inconsistency).(CT13.0)
>
> 15. 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.(13.0)
>
> 16. 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).(14.0)
>
> 17. l. Whether additional requirements regarding Whois history  
> should be
> developed, for change tracking of Whois data and use in resolving
> disputes.(14.0)
>
> 18. p. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that
> registries
> use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.(16.0)
>
> 19. f. Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place
> for
> registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options
> available to registrants.(CT16.0)
>
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> t. 416.538.5492
> c. 416.828.8783
> http://www.domaindirect.com
>
> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
> - Erik Nupponen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>