I’ve shared this with the RrSG and asked for input. This might go to me or directly to Caitlin

Regards

Michele

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting & Colocation, Domains

http://www.blacknight.host/

http://blog.blacknight.com/

http://www.blacknight.press/

http://www.technology.ie/

Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

Social: http://mneylon.social

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 11:59 PM
To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-C Notes from last call / Details for 6 Nov Call

Hi All,

Thank you to all who attended last Thursday’s call. A recording of the call can be downloaded here: http://ftp.adigo.com/clients/icann/20141030_IRTP_PartC.zip

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.

Section 1(d) - The majority of those in attendance agreed that “material change” 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.
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.) :)
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 IRT’s 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 feedback.
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

ICANN