ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] London session timing preference / Rec. 2 feedback

  • To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] London session timing preference / Rec. 2 feedback
  • From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:24:08 -0700

Dear All,


Please find a link to the recording of our last call from Thursday, 8 May
2014: http://ftp.adigo.com/clients/icann/20140508_IRTP_PartC_RT.zip


During the call, we discussed the attached draft of the updated IRTP, which
incorporates Rec. 2 of IRTP-C.  For Rec. 2, the Final Report mentioned five
instances where an FOA should expire:


                1. 60 days has passed (if no auto-renewal)

                2. domain name expires

                3. transfer is executed

                4. change of registrant

                5. dispute filed for the domain name


The first three instances have been incorporated into the draft of the
updated IRTP in Section 2.1.4. We held off on adding the fourth reason
(change of registrant) until we flesh out the process for change of
registrant further to Rec. 1.  In drafting the fifth instance (dispute
regarding domain name), one of the members of the team previously noted that
gaining registrars would have no way of knowing if a dispute was filed.
Therefore, we edited Section 3 of the policy to make it so that the
registrar of record must deny a transfer request if there is a pending UDRP
action, court order, or pending TDRP action.  The participants on the call
were okay with this language, but I wanted to send it around for everyone
else to provide feedback, if desired.


Lastly, a few members of the IRT had discussed doing a white-boarding
session where we could work together to map out the structure of the change
of registrant from Rec. 1.  We thought that was a great idea, and we are
going to schedule a session in London.  This will be an important session
for everyone to attend as this could greatly affect your business practices,
and we want to make sure we are implementing the recommendation as the
Working Group intended.


Given the importance of attendance, I thought I would send around a few
timing options for the London session.  Does the team have any preference
between Sunday, June 22 (early evening), Wednesday, June 25 (any time) or
Friday, June 27 (morning)?


Please let me know if you have any feedback on the attached draft or a
timing preference for London.


Thank you!


Kind regards,


Caitlin Tubergen

Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager




Attachment: Edited IRTP C Rec 2.docx
Description: Microsoft Office

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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy