Minutes from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP meeting on May 30, 2023
In order to save time. The WG continued the discussion to the TDRP Charter questions connected to Phase 2:
From the ICANN Staff minutes: At-Large has indicated support for the registrants to have a way into the TDRP in cases where the process isn’t followed.
The tough part is that with the TDRP there has to be a clear policy violation – although most transfer dispute issues are not policy related. This WG is considering whether to make a recommendation to do something outside of this group. See charter question g3. Phase 2, charter question g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered? In my view, the challenge is that the TDRP is to be used when there is a breach in the defined inter-registrar transfer process - not for cases connected to domain name theft, hijacking etc. Unfortunately, the majority of the WG members are in favour of creating another process to secure the registrant possibility to dispute. My recommendation is that ALAC review and comment the final version of responses to the Phase 2 charter questions in the Public Comments period. The WG final draft for the Phase 2 Charter questions will be completed and discussed at ICANN77 Regards, Steinar Grøtterød At-Large Representative (Also posted to the CPWG site<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=244942680>)
Dear Steinar, thank you for your report. Please explain the following: On 31/05/2023 07:56, Steinar Grøtterød wrote:
Unfortunately, the majority of the WG members are in favour of creating another process to secure the registrant possibility to dispute.
This is in the case of a domain hijacking? So the "new registrant" ie. hijacker, would have the possibility to dispute? Please explain as our sentence is ambiguous. Many thanks, Olivier
Dear Oliver, In my understand, the present and proposed TDRP can only be used if the Losing Registrar (LoRr) or Gaining Registrar (GaRr) have not followed the required processes as defined in the transfer policy. In the present transfer policy, as set of notifications must be sent and approved to the registrant of record. Similar correspondence is proposed in the WG drafts to Phase 1a. In a scenario where either the LoRr or GaRr have NOT followed the defined steps, the transfer dispute should be solved by the TDRP. Note - the mistake(s) can be done without the registrant is altered. It has been argued that since it is the registrars “mistake(s)” that is to be investigated, the Registrant cannot initiate or use the TDRP. Hijacking or domain theft must be solved in a different way than a “TDRP”. I am not sure how but hope the final (draft) report of the Phase 2 charter questions will give some clarity on how a registrant can solve a transfer dispute. Per today – to my understanding, going to court is the only alternative (or in some cases ICANN compliance). I hope this make sense and responds to your question. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date: Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 11:20 To: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar@recito.no>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Cc: hadia Elminiawi <helminiawi@gmail.com>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Re: Minutes from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP meeting on May 30, 2023 Dear Steinar, thank you for your report. Please explain the following: On 31/05/2023 07:56, Steinar Grøtterød wrote: Unfortunately, the majority of the WG members are in favour of creating another process to secure the registrant possibility to dispute. This is in the case of a domain hijacking? So the "new registrant" ie. hijacker, would have the possibility to dispute? Please explain as our sentence is ambiguous. Many thanks, Olivier
participants (2)
-
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Steinar Grøtterød