[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Proposed text for public comment forum and announcement

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Best wishes to all of you!

Please find below the proposed text for the public comment forum and 
announcement relating to the upcoming publication of the IRTP Part A Initial 
Report. Please feel free to send your comments / edits to the mailing list for 
discussion. The aim is to review and finalise the text on tomorrow's conference 
call.

With best regards,

Marika

================

Public Comment Forum

Open: To be confirmed

Closed: To be confirmed

IRTP Part A PDP Initial Report

Explanation: The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a 
series of five planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing 
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy 
<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm>. The IRTP Part A PDP 
concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of registrant 
email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for including new 
forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid 
'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for 
'partial bulk transfers' between registrars. A Working Group, launched by the 
GNSO Council for this PDP, started its deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has 
now published an Initial Report. The Working Group is inviting your comments on 
the Initial Report which can be found here [include link].

Staff member responsible: Marika Konings

Announcement

Public Comments invited on the Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer 
Policy - Part A Policy Development Process

The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five 
planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar 
Transfer Policy <http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm>. The 
IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for 
exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential 
need for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer 
requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should 
include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between registrars.

A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its 
deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. It 
should be noted that the Working Group will not make a final decision on which 
solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of 
the comments received during the public comment period and in the final 
constituency statements has taken place. Following its deliberations, the 
Working Group has made some preliminary conclusions for each issue, which it 
hopes will inspire further comments from the public as well as the 
constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as follows:

Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data 
available to one another?
The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which 
it is currently used. Some members suggested that finding a way to make the 
Registrant e-mail address more readily available could be addressed as part of 
an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol.  This could be 
through updates to the existing protocol, modification of the Extensible 
Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet Registry Information 
Service (IRIS) protocol. However, after review and discussion none of these 
options received broad agreement.

The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for 
providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future 
IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that 
would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been 
completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the 
current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the 
registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process 
is completed.

Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic 
authentication?
Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad 
agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. 
However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether these options 
should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be left to market 
solutions.

Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling 
partial bulk transfers between registrars?
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.

As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment 
for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for redrafting of 
the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for 
further action.

The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete 
Initial Report [include link] before submitting comments.

Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to [insert email address].

Public comments received can be accessed at [insert link].

The deadline for submission of comments is [to be decided].