<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Draft concluding statements for each issue for review
- To: "IRTP-A " <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Draft concluding statements for each issue for review
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:05:31 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;">I
agree with Margie that consolidating approval authority with the admin<br>
contact only could have significant consequences. In effect, we would<br>
be altering the checks and balances built in to the original IRTP in<br>
such a way that the downstream implications are not fully understood. <br>
<br>
Without the safeguard of registrant approval, the incidence of hijacking<br>
could spike, and registrars would have fewer remedies to help the<br>
registrant recover their hijacked names.<br>
<br>
Since we are discussing it, perhaps we can capture the idea in our<br>
report. But I think the concerns must also be strongly noted in the<br>
same section.<br>
<br>
J.<br>
<br><br>
<blockquote webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px;
padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: verdana;">
<div >
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Draft concluding statements for each<br>
issue for review<br>
From: "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><br>
Date: Thu, December 04, 2008 10:37 am<br>
To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx"<br>
<gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx><br>
<br>
<!--[if !mso]> <style>
#wmMessage v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessage o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessage w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmMessage .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style> <![endif]--> <style>
#wmMessage a:link {mso-style-priority:99;}
#wmMessage span.MSOHYPERLINK {mso-style-priority:99;}
#wmMessage a:visited {mso-style-priority:99;}
#wmMessage span.MSOHYPERLINKFOLLOWED {mso-style-priority:99;}
#wmMessage /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2
11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#wmMessage @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmMessage /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmMessage li.MsoNormal,
#wmMessage div.MsoNormal {margin:0pt; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
#wmMessage a:link, #wmMessage span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessage a:visited, #wmMessage span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessage span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
#wmMessage span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
#wmMessage span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial; color:navy;}
#wmMessage @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt
72.0pt;}
#wmMessage div.Section1 {page:Section1;}
</style> <div class="Section1"> <div><font size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial">From the perspective of a corporate registrar, allowing the
administrative contact to have equal rights to the registrant might be
problematic. In some cases, the administrative contact might be a
disgruntled employee that intends to cause harm to its former employer.
For our clients, the company listed as the registrant would
generally have priority over the admin contact if there is a dispute between
the two. The issue of whether the registrant/admin has more or the
same rights should be analyzed more deeply before any such recommendation can
be given.<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2"
color="navy" face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2"
color="navy" face="Arial">Margie <o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font
size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2"
color="navy" face="Arial"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;text-align: center;"
align="center"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><font style="" size="3">
<hr tabindex="-1" size="2" width="100%" align="center"> </font></font></div>
<div><b><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font style="font-family: Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;" size="2" face="Tahoma">From:</font></font></b><font
size="2" face="Tahoma"><font style="font-family: Tahoma;" size="2"
face="Tahoma"> owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx [<a onclick="return
true;if(window.location==top.location){Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');}else{top.Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');};
return false;" href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";
target="_blank"
mce_href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
<b><font style="font-weight: bold;">On Behalf Of </font></b>Mike
Rodenbaugh<br> <b><font style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</font></b> Thursday,
December 04, 2008 8:47 AM<br> <b><font style="font-weight:
bold;">To:</font></b> 'Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx'<br> <b><font
style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</font></b> RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Draft
concluding statements for each issue for review</font></font><o:p></o:p></div>
</div> <div><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><font style=""
size="3"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial">I genereally concur with Michael on this. Registrars seem to
want to keep “registrant email” data for themselves, despite the obvious intent
of the existing WHOIS contract provisions and policy. This info is not
part of the contractual WHOIS information, and thus should not be authoritative
in any potential respect. Therefore we need to consider revising the IRTP
policy so that this hidden WHOIS information is no longer potentially
authoritative, as that causes substantial confusion and uncertainty wrt domain
transactions.<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2" color="navy"
face="Arial"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2"
color="navy" face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2"
color="navy" face="Arial">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font
size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2"
color="navy" face="Arial">Mike R.<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font
size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2"
color="navy" face="Arial"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div> <div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;text-align: center;"
align="center"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><font style="" size="3">
<hr tabindex="-1" size="2" width="100%" align="center"> </font></font></div>
<div><b><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font style="font-family: Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;" size="2" face="Tahoma">From:</font></font></b><font
size="2" face="Tahoma"><font style="font-family: Tahoma;" size="2"
face="Tahoma"> owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx [<a onclick="return
true;if(window.location==top.location){Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');}else{top.Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');};
return false;" href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";
target="_blank"
mce_href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
<b><font style="font-weight: bold;">On Behalf Of </font></b>Michael
Collins<br> <b><font style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</font></b> Thursday,
December 04, 2008 7:30 AM<br> <b><font style="font-weight:
bold;">To:</font></b> 'Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx'<br> <b><font
style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</font></b> RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Draft
concluding statements for each issue for review</font></font><o:p></o:p></div>
</div> <div><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><font style=""
size="3"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">Hi
Marika,<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font
size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">I am not sure that your
analysis of Issue 1 is correct. I certainly believe that a policy change is
required and I am not sure that I am in the minority. We spent so much time
talking about Issue 3 and it has been so long since we discussed 1 that I could
be mistaken.<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font
size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">It was my understanding
that there is a group consensus that allowing admin contact to transfer a
domain that can later be reversed by the registrant is a dangerous policy
problem that we should fix if possible. There is a great deal of difficulty in
agreeing on a solution to provide the registrant email address to the gaining
registrar and there may be a consensus that we cannot find a solution to that
problem.<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font
size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">However, if we are not
able to recommend any solution to provide gaining registrars with registrant
email address, we should recommend changing policy to give admin contact
transfer authority equal to the registrant. We should suggest that a registrant
not be able to reverse a transfer after it is completed when the transfer was
authorized by the admin contact. ICANN should continue to require losing
registrars to notify registrants and give them the opportunity to cancel a
transfer, but not to reverse one that has been
completed.<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font
size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">If we cannot agree to
recommend this policy change, we should at least agree to include this as a
separate possible solution for the concluding statement to solicit more
meaningful comments about the change. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri;" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div> <div><font size="2"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">Michael Collins<o:p></o:p></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">Executive
Director<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/";
target="_blank" mce_href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/";>Internet Commerce
Association</a><o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">+1. 202 657
4570<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri;"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri">+1. 407 242 9009
mobile<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> </div> <div><font size="2"
color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri;" color="#1f497d" face="Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div>
<div> <div style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196,
223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium;
padding: 3pt 0pt 0pt;"> <div><b><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font
style="font-family: Tahoma; font-weight: bold;" size="2"
face="Tahoma">From:</font></font></b><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font
style="font-family: Tahoma;" size="2" face="Tahoma">
owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx [<a onclick="return
true;if(window.location==top.location){Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');}else{top.Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');};
return false;" href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";
target="_blank"
mce_href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
<b><font style="font-weight: bold;">On Behalf Of </font></b>Marika Konings<br>
<b><font style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</font></b> Thursday, December 04,
2008 4:01 AM<br> <b><font style="font-weight: bold;">To:</font></b>
Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx<br> <b><font style="font-weight:
bold;">Subject:</font></b> [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Draft concluding statements
for each issue for review<o:p></o:p></font></font></div> </div> </div>
<div><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><font style=""
size="3"><o:p> </o:p></font></font></div> <div><font size="2"
face="Arial"><font style="font-family: Arial;" size="2" face="Arial">Dear
All,<br> <br> As discussed on our last call, please find below for your review
draft concluding statements for each issue. Please note that these are merely
intended to start an online discussion that we will continue on next week’s
call (9 December). All comments are welcome and encouraged.<br> <br> With
best regards,<br> <br> Marika<br> <br> ============<br> <br> <b><font
style="font-weight: bold;">Issue I<br> </font></b>Based on the discussions in
the Working Group, there appears to be agreement that a policy change is not
required. Some members suggested this issue could be addressed as part of
an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol, perhaps through
updates. There appears to be a slight preference to explore EPP and or future
adoption of the IRIS protocol in further detail as a possible solution over the
other options discussed for Issue I. Neither of these options received broad
agreement, however. However, it should be noted that the Working Group
will not take a final decision on which solution(s), if any, to recommendations
to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments received during
the public comment period and final constituency statements has taken
place.<br> <br> <b><font style="font-weight: bold;">Issue II<br>
</font></b>Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be
broad some agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic
authentication. However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to
whether this should be an issue for GNSO policy making or for market solutions.
It should be noted that the Working Group will not take a final decision on
which solution(s), if any, to recommendations to the GNSO Council before a
thorough review of the comments received during the public comment period and
final constituency statements has taken place. <br> <br> <b><font
style="font-weight: bold;">Issue III</font></b> <br> Based on the discussion in
the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is no need to
incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars
at this stage. The Working Group believes that these scenarios can be addressed
either through the existing Bulk Transfer provisions, or through existing
market solutions. It should be noted that the Working Group will not take a
final decision on which solution(s), if any, to recommendations to the GNSO
Council before a thorough review of the comments received during the public
comment period and final constituency statements has taken place.</font></font>
<o:p></o:p></div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|