- Gnso-irtpd - lists.icann.org

Off the cuff draft:
by Volker Greimann Jan. 14, 2014

Jan. 14, 2014

Very rough first draft for further discussion.... /"Upon receiving a notification from the Losing Registrar of a previous transfer of a domain name of that transfer having occurred either without the knowledge and permission of an earlier Registered Name Holder or in violation of the IRTP, the Registrar of Record shall lock the domain name against modifications or transfers. Registrar shall remove the lock after 21 calendar days unless he receives a notification that court proceedings against the party that initiated the transfer have been initiated, in which case the lock shall be removed only after the proceedings have concluded.//"/ Locking would naturally be interpreted in the context of the Lock-PDP. The notification of initiation of court proceedings would have to have the same requirements as the notifications of the registrant that lost a UDRP. The "party that initiated the transfer" would probably have to be refined, not happy with that term. Naturally, we would also have to amend the ICANN transfer policy to allow for a denial of a transfer in case of a claim of unauthorized prior transfer. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

3 5

MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 13 January 2014
by Julia Charvolen Jan. 13, 2014

Jan. 13, 2014

Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 20 January 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 13 January 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140113-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>jan The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Avri Doria – NCSG Mikey O'Connor – ISPCP Barbara Knight – RySG Holly Raiche – ALAC Chris Chaplow – CBUC Rob Golding – RrSG Paul Diaz – RySG Bartlett Morgan – NCUC Kristina Dorrain – NAF Volker Greimann – RrSG Apologies: James Bladel - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Caitlin Tubergen Berry Cobb Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 13 January 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group on Monday 13 January 2014 Volker Greimann:no audio bridge this time? Julia Charvolen:I am setting audio bridge, it should be on in a few minutes Julia Charvolen:Audio is on in the Adobe Connect Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):waves :) Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):& happy-new-year Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):it was 30+ at night when I was in Miami a few years ago - as a Brit i gelt i was melting into the pavement walking back to the hotel Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):we are used to weather - the cold, wet, windy miserable type - i.e. 'proper' weather :) Volker Greimann:we have not dropped below 0 C the last ew days either. pretty warm here Graeme Bunton:i'm here, but i've been on vacation for three weeks so I can barely remember what i do Graeme Bunton:thank you mikey Avri Doria:for some people, like the local garbage people, thoday is a holiday. Julia Charvolen:Chris Chaplow joined the Adobe Connect Barbara Knight-RySG:Hello all. I just joined. Sorry to be late. Julia Charvolen:Barbara Knight joined the Adobe Connect Avri Doria:my only issue is wording such as 'final disdiscussion' Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):did we 'finalise' the question b issue over multiple transfers ? Lars Hoffmann:@rob: no not yet. it was one of the issue that was still part of the workplan. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):ok Marika Konings:It might be helpful for this WG to work out those use cases so it will be easier to identify whether or not these are covered under the implementation of IRTP Part C Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):agreed about the no to registrant starting it Lars Hoffmann:Current Statut of Limitation: Lars Hoffmann:2.3 Statute of LimitationsA dispute must be filed no later than six (6) months after the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy. In the case where a Registrar of Record alleges that a transfer was in violation of this Policy, the date the transfer was completed shall be deemed the date in which the "alleged violation" took place. In the case where a Gaining Registrar alleges that a transfer should have taken place, the date in which the NACK (as defined below) was received by the Registry, shall be deemed the date in which the "alleged violation" took place. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):yes, I tend to reg and renew in 5 year periods, but log in to my registrar accounts relatively regularlyso would see the domain as missing Volker Greimann:sorry, whare are we right now? Volker Greimann:ok, thx Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):TDRP is for registrars to resolve disputes, not registrants Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):i.e. we 'nak'd' this transfer request but you processed it anyway type complaints Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):yes, it does work for that (its the only time in umpteen years we've ever had to think about it Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):everything else has cenetered around registranst and admin contacts disagreeing over transfers or designers holding domains to ransom or similar Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):shoudl possibly be *original* registrar of record and *initial* gaining registrar Kristine Dorrain:Not ususally. Avri Doria:that is proabably a national variant. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):Not in the UK - caveat emptor - if the car is stolen no matter how many times it's changed hands, it goes back to the original owner and the peopel in the middle have to go to the courts Kristine Dorrain:Same in the US. Caveat emptor here too Holly Raiche:Yes, I was talking about the good faith principle - purchased in good faith. Holly Raiche:It may be that the courts would recognise ICANN rules on the isue but something to consider Kristine Dorrain:a multi country survey of a single legal issue is a pretty big task... Marika Konings:and not cheap ;-) Chris Chaplow:Thanks Lars Lars Hoffmann:I have to leave the call. Marika will remain on the call however. Very best, Lars Avri Doria:in the US such laws will vary by locality and state. Confiscaation is big in these parts. Avri Doria:and argumentes such as, but you should have checked. Avri Doria:if it was possible to check ND YOU DID NOT CHECK, THEN TOUGH. Volker Greimann:how far down the line do you have to check? Avri Doria:sorry about the caps. cap lock is a mistypeed a. Avri Doria:Volker, depends on the quality of the lawters arguing the case after the fact. Holly Raiche:That is question D Julia Charvolen:Thank you Graeme Bunton:thx mikey

1 0

Fwd: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 13, 2014

Jan. 13, 2014

Dear all, Forwarded on behalf of James. Best wishes Lars. Begin forwarded message: From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: 11 Jan 2014 19:11:31 EST To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> Subject: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt (Lars, can you please forward to the IRTP list? I am unable to do so currently.) Team: The article linked below was shared in the context of a different ICANN working group, but contains an interesting example/use case of TDRP, so I thought it might be worthwhile reading for this group. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/09444625820/turns-out-city-london… Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad.

3 2

A matrix -- all the scenarios, dropped into buckets -- Policy? Parties? Compliance Role? Volume?
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 12, 2014

Jan. 12, 2014

hi all, i walked out of our last call with an action to try to drop all our scenarios into various buckets. here’s my first try — by no means the last, i’m sure. ;-) mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Monday's agenda
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 10, 2014

Jan. 10, 2014

Dear all, Please find below the draft agenda for Monday's meeting as well as a draft summary of last week's call on Charter Question C and also a draft work plan as discussed. Best wishes, Lars 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on draft work plan (see below) 3. Discussion on draft summary on Question C (see below) 4. If time: Revision of previous discussion and draft recommendations on Charter Question B 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting ---- Draft Work Plan: The submission deadline for work documents for the Singapore meeting is Monday 3 March 2014 - this will give the Group eight more meetings, including 13 January and 3 March if a draft Initial Report is to be submitted n time for the Singapore Meeting. Considering that Charter question b (multiple transfers) and c (registrant access to TDRP) are still in need of discussion, here a proposed time table: 13 January: Discussion on Charter Question B 20 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C 27 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C By the end of January a draft Initial Report circulated by Staff 03 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 10 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 17 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 24 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 03 March: Signing off on Draft Initial Report 24-27 March: ICANN Meeting Singapore: 7 April: First meting after Singapore; publication of Initial Report and open Public Comment -- Summary based on Monday's discussion of Charter Question C (Registrant access to TDRP) The Working Group discussed at length the issue of whether or not to modify the TDRP to allow for a registrant-initiated TDRP. As part of these discussions, the Working Group has drawn up a number of scenarios, in which registrants have suffered an unwanted loss of control over a domain name and for which, in the Groups' opinion, the current TDRP does not provide adequate solutions. In addition, the Working Group has also consulted with ICANN Compliance to understand better the circumstances under which Compliance can and does act based on existing TDRP provisions. In summary, the Group agrees that, as long as there is just one registrant who has a complaint concerning an inter-registrar transfer (the kind of transfer that the policy was designed for) then the current TDRP rules are sufficient and provide adequate solutions - via ICANN Compliance and/or Dispute resolution providers. The issues and scenarios that the Group has found and discussed, however, lie outside the current scope of the TDRP, because these scenarios involve two or more registrants disputing an inter-registrant transfer. It is these circumstances that require new consensus policy. However, the Group feels that the drafting of such a policy goes beyond the scope of this group and in fact beyond the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy that is the focus of this PDP. Therefore, the Working Group calls for an Issue Report with the view to creating an inter-registant transfer dispute policy. Recommendation #1 of the IRTP Part C Final Report that lays out the adoption of a change of registrant consensus policy could serve as a starting point for this undertaking.

1 0

MP3 IRTP D WG - Monday 06 January 2014
by Julia Charvolen Jan. 6, 2014

Jan. 6, 2014

Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 13 January 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 06 January 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140106-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>jan The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: James Bladel - RrSG Avri Doria – NCSG Mikey O'Connor – ISPCP Barbara Knight – RySG Holly Raiche – ALAC Chris Chaplow – CBUC Angie Graves - CSG Apologies: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Kevin Erdman – IPC ICANN staff: Lars Hoffmann Caitlin Tubergen Berry Cobb Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 06 January 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group on Monday 6 January 2014 Julia Charvolen:Angie Graves joined the phone bridge Julia Charvolen:Chris Chaplow joined the Adobe Connect Avri Doria:that is a frightening list of possiblity avenues Berry Cobb:What you see before you is all the compliance ticket types migrated from Internic to the Compliance Page. The Compliance team completed the full migration in Oct 2013. Avri Doria:one stop shopping for redress of registrant issues? Berry Cobb:@Avri, I think that was part of the idea. The primary driver was that the Compliance Team had little control in making changes to the complaint forms for acquiring more accurate and detailed ticket information. It made sense to take control, by migrating it under ICANN. Internic is not controlled by ICANN. Berry Cobb:IRTP-E? Bladel:But not really related to IRTP. It's a new animal Avri Doria:no, agree on issues report at this point. irtp-e decsion comes later, once the the issue report has done the analysis. Avri Doria:of course just saying issues report does not really resolve it, we need to frame the question properly. Avri Doria:Well part of an issue report does the analysis of whether it is in scope or not. Avri Doria:i tend to thnk it is. but the issues report would go dhole.own the rabbit Avri Doria:... down the rabbit hole . Avri Doria:ICANN has already gone beyond what was envistoned. Bladel:Hah! true that. Bladel:Sorry, have to drop. Thanks everyone! great call! Julia Charvolen:Thank you all

1 0

Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process
by Holly Raiche Jan. 6, 2014

Jan. 6, 2014

Hi Everyone From out of the blue - someone who is interested in this subject from an academic perspective. I am happy to be the go-between if people are comfortable with that. Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Sarah Alkire <skalkire(a)uw.edu> > Date: 22 December 2013 3:54:48 PM AEDT > To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>, Dharma Dailey <dharma.dailey(a)gmail.com> > Subject: RE: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process > > Hi Holly, > > Thanks for the explanation. I am new to all of this, but am catching up. Do you have any sense of what percentage (or what you think the percentage is) of wrongful transfers versus other scenarios? > > I do have someone that complained of losing their domain on another list (geared to women in IT) and wanted to complain to ICANN. The situation seems to be due to a squatter, and a registrant that let it be purchased by 2 businesses. The person that lost was the owner of a small business. Would you like me to connect you to her? > > At any rate, do you have a way for me to participate in gathering information for your working group, or this issue? > > Sarah > From: Holly Raiche [h.raiche(a)internode.on.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:24 PM > To: Dharma Dailey > Cc: Sarah Alkire > Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process > > Thanks Dharma and Hi Sarah > > Happy to have feedback on wrongful transfers. The Working Group I am in is looking at the Inter-Registrar Transfer Process - in particular looking at the variety of situations in which it occurs. The issue underlying it is to understand when the transfer is wrongful in the sense that it has happened contrary to provisions of ICANN policy and RAA requirements as against situations when the transfer has occurred for other reasons (such as a web designer not transferring control to the company for which the site as designed, or a dispute within the organisation that haws the website) > > The ultimate purpose is to understand when ICANN might provide redress for the registrant losing the name, and when the issue is outside of ICANN's remit. > > Thanks > > HOlly > > On 21/12/2013, at 2:08 AM, Dharma Dailey wrote: > >> >> Hi Holly, >> >> I'd like to introduce you to Sarah Alkire who will be representing my ALS in London. She is new to At-Large and ICANN but I think she brings a lot to the table. She's in IT at the University of Washington and is pursuing her second masters in Human Centered Design and Engineering. She has the tech background to know how the Internet works and is well along in her training in user research. Sarah's interested in working on the wrongful transfer of registration that you posted about. If you can loop her in, that would be great. >> >> Best, >> Dharma >> >> >> On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Sarah Alkire wrote: >> >>> Hi Dharma, >>> >>> This is an issue that I’d really be interested in. Thoughts? >>> >>> Sarah >>> >>> From: registration-issues-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:32 PM >>> To: registration-issues-wg(a)icann.org >>> Subject: [registration-issues-wg] Fwd: [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process >>> >>> Hi Everyone >>> >>> I sent this to the ALAC list, and Olivier suggested that I send it to this list as well. >>> >>> Any and all input would be welcome >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> HOlly >>> >>> (I am sending this as a member of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy D WG (a GNSO WG) >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> Where the ITRP D working group is up to is gathering scenarios where the registrant has lost their domain name. >>> >>> By way of background, in the earlier working group (IRTP C), the possibility of the registrant being able to access the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy dispute mechanism. But for this working group, allowing registrant access to the process is seen to be too hard. But the WG agrees that there must be redress for registrants who have (wrongly) had their domain name transferred away. >>> >>> Some of the scenarios are really not - at their base - an ICANN issue. (the admin contact quits/is fired, and then cancels the name, takes it with him/her, or the web designer gets the site up and running and then doesn't give the name to the person who hired him/her.) >>> >>> But there are many scenarios that do amount to a breach of the RAA/policy. >>> >>> The WG's view at this stage is to have the registrant be able to go to Compliance for enforcement of the transfer rules if the rules/policy has not been followed. >>> >>> What Compliance has done for the group is forward the many situations which will be considered as a breach of the RAA/policy and for which ICANN should be able to order a transfer back of the name to the registrant. >>> >>> Does anyone have any real life scenarios that I can take to the group when it reconvenes in January so that the WG can 'road test' how various scenarios would be played out - i.e., in what circumstances the registrant, with ICANN help, can recover a name transferred away from them that should not, under ICANN rules, not have been transferred. >>> >>> Holly >>> >>> <ATT00001.c> >> > >

3 2

Happy new year and Š Monday's agenda
by Lars Hoffmann Jan. 3, 2014

Jan. 3, 2014

Dear all, First, let me wish you a very happy, healthy and successful 2014! I hope you were able to wind down during the holiday period and had the chance to recharge those batteries for the challenges ahead. Speaking of … Please find below the agenda for Monday's IRTP Part D PDP WG meeting. Many thanks and see you all on Monday! Best wishes, Lars Proposed Agenda IRTP Part D PDP Working Group Meeting, 6 January 2014, 16.00 UTC, for local times see http://tinyurl.com/oo2gmtv 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on circulated view of ICANN Compliance on TDRP (see below) 3. If time: Revisit Work Plan 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting ---- >From an ICANN Compliance point of view Scenarios (under IRTP as it stands) in which ICANN Compliance has the authority to act: Regarding the loosing registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrant was not able to retrieve the auth code from the control panel, then the registrant requested the registrar to send it but it was not sent within the required 5 days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) - the means provided by the registrar for the registrant to retrieve the auth code are more restrictive than the means provided for the registrant to update its contact or name server information - the registrar sends the Auth Code to someone who is not the registered name holder - the registrar does not even send it at all FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - sends it to someone who is not a Transfer Contact Unlocking of the domain name: - the registrant did not have the means provided by the registrar to unlock the domain name, then the registrant requested the registrar to unlock the domains and the registrar did not unlock them within the five days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) Regarding the gaining registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving the Auth-code - which would be technically impossible but can theoretically happen (in a scenario also involving registry error) FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - the registrar sends the FOA to someone who is not a Transfer Contact - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving confirmation after sending the FOA

3 2

Holiday card (electronic version)
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 29, 2013

Dec. 29, 2013

De : Glen de Saint Géry Envoyé : dimanche 29 décembre 2013 11:17 À : gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Objet : Holiday card (electronic version) [cid:578EC140-800D-4AE9-B80A-BC051E7CE466]

1 0

Summary of Compliance's assessment, p
by Lars Hoffmann Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

Dear all, Following Monday's call, please fine below's summary of the points that Carlos from ICANN Compliance raised during the call. In case you did not attend the call or would like to listen again, you can find the MP3 recording here<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20131216-en.mp3>. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars >From an ICANN Compliance point of view Scenarios (under IRTP as it stands) in which ICANN Compliance has the authority to act: Regarding the loosing registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrant was not able to retrieve the auth code from the control panel, then the registrant requested the registrar to send it but it was not sent within the required 5 days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) - the means provided by the registrar for the registrant to retrieve the auth code are more restrictive than the means provided for the registrant to update its contact or name server information - the registrar sends the Auth Code to someone who is not the registered name holder - the registrar does not even send it at all FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - sends it to someone who is not a Transfer Contact Unlocking of the domain name: - the registrant did not have the means provided by the registrar to unlock the domain name, then the registrant requested the registrar to unlock the domains and the registrar did not unlock them within the five days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) Regarding the gaining registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving the Auth-code - which would be technically impossible but can theoretically happen (in a scenario also involving registry error) FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - the registrar sends the FOA to someone who is not a Transfer Contact - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving confirmation after sending the FOA

1 0