ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-C Notes from last call / Details for 6 Nov Call

  • To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-C Notes from last call / Details for 6 Nov Call
  • From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 23:59:05 +0000

Hi All,

Thank you to all who attended last Thursday¹s call.  A recording of the call
can be downloaded here:

Details for 6 November Call (Outlook invite to follow shortly)

The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Implementation Review
Team teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 6 November 2014 at 17:00 UTC.

09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London, 17:00 CET, 03:00 (+1 day) Sydney.

Call details can be found below:

Adigo Conference ID: 28462745

Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/

Adobe Connect with audio enabled: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/

Notes from 30 October Call

Thanks to everyone who attended ‹ the feedback was very helpful. For those
of you who were unable to attend, I have provided a brief summary of the
issues that we covered.
1. Section 1(d) - The majority of those in attendance agreed that ³material
change² should be a defined term in the policy, rather than a footnote.
Material Change is now a defined term in section 1(d) of the policy.
2. Section 2.2(a) - There were some concerns that this clause could affect
companies who provide expired domain sales.  Accordingly, some members of
the IRT offered to share this with stakeholders and/or companies who would
be affected/interested by this.  (For those of you who volunteered or wish
to volunteer, please do so.) :)
3. Section 2.2(c) - The group had a lively discussion about domain name
disputes, particularly in reference to the URS and other disputes that the
registrar may have no knowledge of.  Accordingly, the language has been
modified further to the IRT¹s suggestion.  The group was also opposed to the
language, formerly in section 1(c), involving the serverUpdateprohibited EPP
status.  Specifically, registries could set this status for reasons other
than a URS proceeding, so those in attendance believed this broadened the
original intent of the WG and should therefore be removed.  You are welcome
to review the newly-proposed language in section 2.2(c) and provide
4. Section 2.3 ‹ The group also had a lively discussion around this section.
Section 2.3 was written to include optional reasons for COR denial that the
WG may not have thought of, e.g., fraud, registry-imposed eligibility
restrictions, et. al.  The majority of the group agreed that this is
treading closely into policy-making territory, and the IRT is not supposed
to create policy.  The IRT also noted that many of the circumstances listed
in the former section 2.3 can be resolved via other consensus policies or
via registration agreements.  By way of example, fraud could be a breach of
a registration agreement, allowing the registrar to cancel the registration
agreement through a mechanism other than this policy.  For the members that
were present during the call, please feel free to elaborate if I did not
accurately summarize your concerns. :)  I have deleted that entire section
to reflect the consensus of those one the call.
As always, please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or
feedback. Thank you!

Kind regards,

Caitlin Tubergen
Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager

Attachment: Draft Change of Registrant Policy_3Nov.docx
Description: Microsoft Office

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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy