Dear All, ICANN Staff has reviewed the comments from the IPC (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html and attached) in relation to the staff proposals on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9,part 2 and we would like to share our views with the GNSO Council so these can be considered as part of the deliberations on this topic at the upcoming GNSO Council meeting. Recommendation #8 In relation to the staff proposal for IRTP Part B Recommendation #8, the IPC notes that "IPC feels that if the proposed links do become stripped out of the WHOIS record, it might create enforcement issues for ICANN and increased user-confusion. Nonetheless, IPC believes that several other options might result in reduced consumer confusion and better enforcement. IPC details these below. Option 1: Perhaps the link at the end of the WHOIS output could be embedded in the status code itself in the WHOIS data,rather than at the end of all the data. Alternatively, the link could appear adjacent to the status code. Option 2: The proposed link could direct the user directly to the operative EPP code and accompanying explanation for that code. This would, in IPC’s view, obviate the need for the user to sort through the list of 17 status codes to locate the appropriate code in a potentially time-consuming endeavor. IPC also notes that the Recommendationmakes no mention of multi-lingual support for WHOIS output. Accordingly, IPS suggests that ICANN considering incorporating this feature into the final recommendation. Option 3: Alternatively, and preferably, dispense with links and provide the explanation in a footnote to each WHOIS record." In relation to option 1, hyperlinks could also be stripped out, so this option does not address the IPC’s concern that ‘proposed links do become stripped out of the Whois record’. However, the concern of links being stripped out is addressed by requiring registrars to ‘not remove Internic.net hyperlinks (or particularly the Internic.net status hyperlink) from their WHOIS output’. In relation to option 2, this approach could be beneficial, as it would direct the user directly to the applicable explanation for that code. Registrars could be required to display a link to information on each status code directly next to the status in the output, for example: "Status: ClientLock http:www.internic.net/status.html/clientlock". The Registrar Stakeholder Group should also review and respond to this IPC proposal. With regard to multi-lingual support, ICANN will post translations of the status information. The web-page can make use of localization information from the browser the user is using to display the web-page in the related language. In relation to option 3, this option was also discussed by the IRTP Part B WG in considering earlier drafts of the proposal, but was discarded as this would not work for Whois queries via port-43 and would not allow for flexibility and easy access to the information that a separate web-page offers. Recommendation #9, part 2 In relation to the proposal for IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2, the IPC notes that "IPC does have concerns, however, with the ability of the registrar to impose a lock that prevents adomain name transfer if the terms and conditions for such a transfer are included in the registration agreement. IPC believes that this blanket allowance might be harmful to registrants, many of which are trademark owners or otherwise holders of intellectual property, who will agree to the terms and conditions in a “click-through” agreement without actually reading it. Accordingly, IPC opposes this particular provision of Recommendation #9, Part 2". This proposal is specifically designed to address transfer issues that may arise from the scenario described by the IPC To this end, the proposed provision includes a requirement to remove the lock within 5 days, so even if the registrant agreed to the lock by 'clicking through' the registration agreement 'without actually reading it', the registrar must un-lock the domain name within 5 days upon registrant’s request. In other words, registrars may not “contract out” of their obligations under the IRTP. We would be happy to answer any further questions you might have. With best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:36:48 -0800 To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear All, Please find attached the comments from the IPC on the staff proposals in relation to IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2. As these comments were received after the closing of the public comment forum and the submission of the proposals to the Council, these are provided to you directly for your consideration. ICANN Staff is planning to provide its feedback on the IPC comments separately so that you have the opportunity to review our opinion on these comments also as part of your deliberations. With best regards, Marika From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:02:12 -0800 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "Murray, Emily" <emurray@steptoe.com<mailto:emurray@steptoe.com>>, "Barry, Korey" <Kbarry@steptoe.com<mailto:Kbarry@steptoe.com>> Subject: RE: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear Marika, Thank you very much for your response. Please find attached the IPC’s comments on the above-mentioned issues, which have now been approved by the IPC. We would greatly appreciate it if the comments could be considered and if the proposals could be revised, if warranted. We sincerely appreciate your flexibility and consideration during the busy year-end and holiday period. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: January 4, 2012 3:43:52 AM EST To: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Subject: Re: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear Brian, As the proposals have already been submitted to the GNSO Council and the public comment forum has been closed, it might make more sense to raise the IPC's comments as part of the Council's deliberations on the proposals, unless the Council prefers that Staff considers the IPC comments first and revises the proposals, if necessary, based on the comments. Best regards, Marika From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com>> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:56:37 -0800 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear Marika, I hope you enjoyed the holiday break! Unfortunately due to everyone's hectic schedule surrounding the holidays, we were a bit delayed in composing comments on both of these recommendations on behalf of the IPC. Accordingly, we are planning to submit comments on behalf of the IPC later this week on these issues. Please let us know if that is okay, or if we are too late to do so. Thank you and looking forward to working together in 2012! Best, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:45 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2 Dear All, First of all, best wishes for 2012! As you may recall, the GNSO Council resolved in June of last year in relation to two of the IRTP Part B recommendations (recommendation #8 concerning the standardization and clarification of Whois status messages regarding Registrar Lock status and recommendation #9 part 2 concerning a new provision to lock and unlock domain names) to request ICANN staff to provide proposals. In consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, ICANN Staff prepared these proposals which were subsequently put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov11-en.htm). As no comments were received as part of the public comment forum, these proposals are now submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration (see attached). If you have any questions, please let me know. With best regards, Marika