- Gnso-irtpd - lists.icann.org

For your review
by Lars Hoffmann June 2, 2014

June 2, 2014

Dear all, Apologies for the late communication of the draft agenda for today's meeting. Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda IRTP Part D PDP WG Meeting 2 June 2914, 15.00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. FInish review of list of definitions 3. Circle back through the public comments and discuss actions. 4. Next steps/Confirming next meeting

1 0

Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 19 May 2014
by Terri Agnew May 19, 2014

May 19, 2014

Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 2nd June 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 19 May 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140519-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140519-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight – RySG James Bladel - RrSG Bob Mountain – RrSG Volker Greimann – RrSG Kevin Erdman – IPC Kristine Dorrian – National Arbitration Forum Chris Chaplow – CBUC Bartlett Morgan - NCUC Apologies: Paul Diaz – RySG Holly Raiche – ALAC Angie Graves – BC Avri Doria – NCSG ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg> https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 19 May 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D Meeting, Monday 19 May 2014 Volker Greimann:James, practice your German ;-) Marika Konings:Congrats Volker!! Barbara Knight:Congratulations on both counts Volker! Bladel:wow...congrats! Bladel:A busy year for you both! :) Terri Agnew:Bob Mountain has joined Terri Agnew:Chris Chaplow has joined audio Volker Greimann:thank you all Volker Greimann:we are very happy. Chris Chaplow:Apologies to group, I missed a couple of calls. Volker Greimann:I will bring my wife to London, so you will probably be able to meet her Terri Agnew:Bartlett Morgan has joined Bob Mountain:Volker bringing his better half ;) Terri Agnew:Kevin Erdman has joined audio Berry Cobb:Just note that there is not an August Council meeting. Berry Cobb:July 24 is the scheduled session post London Lars Hoffmann: With the motion deadline being 14 July - Lars Hoffmann:There is no need for a comment period. Berry Cobb:only if recommendations substantially change, then another PC may be desired. Lars Hoffmann:We have put in a request for 90min - and i will let the group know about the timing as soon as we have time/date Marika Konings:Please remember to mute your mics when not speaking! Lars Hoffmann:Steve Chan drew this graphic that might be helpful for this dicussion Barbara Knight:I also received a lot of feedback when he spoke Bob Mountain:gprs Berry Cobb:The most requirement is that there is an audit trail / Chain of custody. It seems all WG members agree to this. So if the WG were to entertain the removal of a FOA, another alternative would have to be determined/developed. Bob Mountain:Agree Berry. Berry Cobb:...most important... Berry Cobb:and as Volker pointed out last week....FOA provides the 2-Factor basis for a transfer too. Barbara Knight:Perhaps we may want to look at the failures based on the FOA to be a positive since, as was just pointed out, it is the only interaction with the Registered Name Holder directly. Perhaps they failed because the Registered Name Holder did not authorize the transfer. Kristine Dorrain:That's what I'm wondering, Barbara. Barbara Knight:I thought that the losing registrar and the registrar of record would be the same entity Chris Chaplow:We dont like to use the term 'loose' Bladel:Lars: Can you take the wheel beginning with Respondent? Lars Hoffmann:sure Barbara Knight:Good point Christine. Barbara Knight:sorry Kristine. Barbara Knight:Thanks everyone.

1 0

For your Review
by Lars Hoffmann May 16, 2014

May 16, 2014

Dear all, Please find below the proposed draft agenda for Monday¹s meeting. We only have 3 scheduled meetings if we want to meet the deadline for London(seeing that 26 May is Memorial Day in the US and the late May bank holiday in the UK). Consequently, you will see that the agenda includes discussing increasing the frequency or prolonging the length of our meetings. Please carefully consult your agenda before the call :) In addition, attached you will find a very useful diagram explaining the inter-regsitrar transfer process illustrating clearly where the FOA comes in that was produced by Steve Chan. We hope that this will help in Monday¹s discussion. Best wishes, Lars PS: If any of the participating registrars can provide addition data on failed transfers before (or during) the call that would be very much appreciated. So far we have received data from Rob. IRTP Part D PDP Working Group Monday 19 May 2014, 15.00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Review of FOA-related transfer numbers. 3. Review of list of definitions 4. Review of work plan and decision to increase length/frequency of calls. 5. Circle back through the public comments and discuss actions. 6. Next steps/Confirming next meeting Best wishes, Lars

1 0

Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 12 May 2014
by Terri Agnew May 14, 2014

May 14, 2014

Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 19 May 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 12 May 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140512-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140512-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight – RySG James Bladel - RrSG Angie Graves – BC Avri Doria – NCSG Bob Mountain – RrSG Volker Greimann – RrSG Rob Golding – RrSG Apologies: Paul Diaz – RySG Holly Raiche – ALAC Graeme Bunton - RrSG Kevin Erdman - IPC ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg> https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 12 May 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D Working Group on Monday 12 May 2014 Volker:Hi Lars and Terri Terri Agnew:Hi Volker Avri Doria:alwasy Lars Hoffmann:yes i have. Avri Doria:when i used a mac, it worked well. Lars Hoffmann:chrome. Avri Doria:i have used both chrome and firefox. firefox works better Avri Doria:i have trouble sometime in windows 8 getting the microphone correct. Avri Doria:one thing i have noticed is that having the audi parameters set before starting the session is best on either w8 or osx Lars Hoffmann:NP Terri Agnew:Bob, I have added you to attendance Terri Agnew:Angie Graves has joined audio Terri Agnew:and now Adobe Barbara Knight:I am definitely curious as to the source of the data on transfers and failures Bob Mountain:Agree James, FoA issues are a very small percentage of failures that Afternic is involved with. Bob Mountain:Having some adobe connect issues Berry Cobb:As a near term future action based on this recommendation of keping the FOA, it was discussed in the IRTP-C IRT that the language around the IRTP needs to be updated to reflect the current state use of EPP and how FOAs would be used in today's environment of two-factor transfer. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):Surely you can 'log' getting the auth code just as easily as doinga 'log' on an FOA ? Terri Agnew:Rob Golding, I have added you to attendance Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):If the registrant places and order, pays for the transfer, provides the auth-code - what further benefit is another step ? Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):(when that step existed because there was no auth-code step) Volker:Unlock is not required Volker:if not locked Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):i have some 'actual' stats if wanted ? Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):In a mo, just dialing in Volker:are you sure that those customers actually are the owners of the email addresses listed in the whois? Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):we validate the whois vs customer details first Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):as we need them to take off privacy servcies etc before attempting the transfer Bob Mountain:kudos to Arthur for his input Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):how can it be an 'unauthorised transfer' if they dont provide the authcode - as it cant transfer without it ? Volker:Evidence Barbara Knight:Volker +1 Avri Doria:Evidience of it having been properly. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):I'm not techy - but dont the registrars actually retrive the code from the registry - so they woudl have that action logged anyway Volker:AFAIK, Registrars generate the Auth-info themselves Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):but it has to be 'at the registry' or how does the gaining registrar validate it with the registry ? Barbara Knight:I agree that the AuthInfo is passed to the Registry by the Registrar. Barbara Knight:Once an Auth Info code is in the registry database, when a transfer command is passed to the registry by the registrar, the registrar also passes the auth info code and if it matches what is in the registry system, the transfer is processed Barbara Knight:If it doesn't match or if the registrar doesn't pass it, the registry system will return an error Volker:Personally, I'd love to see the FoAs go. Many potential resellers wanted to switch to us and the FOAs prevented an easy migration Volker:still, if we get rid of them, we will need something more than we have now to replace them Bob Mountain:Yes I can only imagine the challenge to having all registrars replace FoA. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):I;m with volker - gaining reg FOAS shoudl go :) Avri Doria:thanks Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):stats sent to the list. Thanks James

2 1

Re: [gnso-irtpd] Transfer stats as discussed on the call
by Volker Greimann May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Indeed, it is an issue we see as well. The only solution we have is to: a) send the FOA to both registrant and Admin-C b) advise the customer clearly and plainly of the steps needed to complete the transfer c) do more b) as part of the process to transfer The statistics you quoted are interesting though. As most of our transfer request are provided to us by our resellers, we are unable to do the same with regard to verification of the customer details, and therefore cannot differentiate between authorized and unauthorized transfer requests beyond doing the FOA and verifying the Auth-code. Volker Am 12.05.2014 18:19, schrieb Rob Golding: >> actually, there is no need for any action with regard to the FoA from >> the losing registrar. The only FOA requiring registrant action is the >> FOA sent by the gaining registrar. > Typo :) > >>> 1131 transfers failed at least once due to FOA issues >>> 986 either didnt get, didnt understand or didnt realise they needed to >>> follow the FOA from the losing registrar > s/be > > 986 either didnt get, didnt understand or didnt realise they needed to > follow the FOA as well as instructions from the losing registrar > > Rob >

1 0

Re: [gnso-irtpd] Transfer stats as discussed on the call
by Volker Greimann May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Hi Rob, actually, there is no need for any action with regard to the FoA from the losing registrar. The only FOA requiring registrant action is the FOA sent by the gaining registrar. Volker Am 12.05.2014 17:56, schrieb Rob Golding: > Whilst we only have a small number of domains dealt with und3er our > accreditations, I have no doubt that the issue would 'scale' with bugger > numbers ... > > Figures for inbound transfers: > > 3897 transfers requested by registrants > 2737 transfers completed > 29 transfers actively cancelled > > 1131 transfers failed at least once due to FOA issues > 986 either didnt get, didnt understand or didnt realise they needed to > follow the FOA from the losing registrar > > From our ticket history (so actual number may be more if they didn't contact > is about it ) but at least 108 transfer needed the FOA sent at least *5 > times* to get past spam filters, whitelists etc > > Every one of these transfer requests had ordered, paid (where necessary), > accepted the terms and supplied the EPP code - I.e. all the things on the > inbound FOA anyway - As you cannot start a transfer without the EPP code > (and the FOA predates them by about 10 years) IMHO it's become the defaco > replacement of the 'standardised email' for the *gaining* registrar. > > Regards, > Rob > -- > rob.golding(a)astutium.com www.astutium.com 020 3475 2555 > Astutium Ltd, 1st Floor, Number One Poultry, London, EC2R 8JR > Registered in England (UK) / Company #8183381 / VAT #145054825 > > Get your new website online today at https://www.astutium.com > domains email hosting vps cloud colo dedicated servers iptransit > >

2 1

Transfer stats as discussed on the call
by Rob Golding May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Whilst we only have a small number of domains dealt with und3er our accreditations, I have no doubt that the issue would 'scale' with bugger numbers ... Figures for inbound transfers: 3897 transfers requested by registrants 2737 transfers completed 29 transfers actively cancelled 1131 transfers failed at least once due to FOA issues 986 either didnt get, didnt understand or didnt realise they needed to follow the FOA from the losing registrar >From our ticket history (so actual number may be more if they didn't contact is about it ) but at least 108 transfer needed the FOA sent at least *5 times* to get past spam filters, whitelists etc Every one of these transfer requests had ordered, paid (where necessary), accepted the terms and supplied the EPP code - I.e. all the things on the inbound FOA anyway - As you cannot start a transfer without the EPP code (and the FOA predates them by about 10 years) IMHO it's become the defaco replacement of the 'standardised email' for the *gaining* registrar. Regards, Rob -- rob.golding(a)astutium.com www.astutium.com 020 3475 2555 Astutium Ltd, 1st Floor, Number One Poultry, London, EC2R 8JR Registered in England (UK) / Company #8183381 / VAT #145054825 Get your new website online today at https://www.astutium.com domains email hosting vps cloud colo dedicated servers iptransit

1 0

For your review
by Lars Hoffmann May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

Dear all, Following Kristine¹s feedback, please find below the proposed draft agenda for Monday¹s call. In addition, I have once more added the comment review tool and the summary of Arthur¹s comments to this email. Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda, IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 12 May 2014, 15.00 UTC 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Review Comments received 3. Re-vsit the Recommended actions¹ 4. Start reviewing the list of definitions (if time permits) 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting From: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday 7 May 2014 14:22 To: "gnso-irtpd(a)icann.org" <gnso-irtpd(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Summary and Updated Review Tool Dear all, Following Monday¹s call, please find attached the updated public comment review tool as well as a one-page summary of comment 28 by Arthur Zonnenberg and the related comment by ICANN Compliance. Those text passages that I paraphrased are marked as such. I would like to encourage you to have a read through them in preparation for Monday¹s call, sparing James (or me) the need to read through them on the call :) Many thanks and very best wishes, Lars

1 0

Feedback wanted: next week's agenda
by Lars Hoffmann May 7, 2014

May 7, 2014

Dear all, After consulting with James, I would like to gather some feedback on next Monday¹s agenda. Once we have finished reviewing comment 28 and 29 (see my previous email) - should we take a look at the list of IRTP definitions (sent out last week)? Or should we re-scan the public comment review tool and the various to-do items that have resulted from the first comb-through? Your thoughts are much appreciated! Very best, Lars

2 1

Summary and Updated Review Tool
by Lars Hoffmann May 7, 2014

May 7, 2014

Dear all, Following Monday¹s call, please find attached the updated public comment review tool as well as a one-page summary of comment 28 by Arthur Zonnenberg and the related comment by ICANN Compliance. Those text passages that I paraphrased are marked as such. I would like to encourage you to have a read through them in preparation for Monday¹s call, sparing James (or me) the need to read through them on the call :) Many thanks and very best wishes, Lars

2 1