<map version="0.9.0">
<!-- To view this file, download free mind mapping software FreeMind from http://freemind.sourceforge.net -->
<node CREATED="1363018862397" ID="ID_575633185" MODIFIED="1363018868223" TEXT="IRTP-D">
<node CREATED="1363018868236" ID="ID_1524311134" MODIFIED="1363019254612" POSITION="right" TEXT="Question Zero">
<node CREATED="1363019254612" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_646821239" MODIFIED="1368459672521" TEXT="Background session first?">
<node CREATED="1363019334632" ID="ID_1679073471" MODIFIED="1363019348267" TEXT="Maybe look to the slides in the Initial Report?"/>
<node CREATED="1363019353847" ID="ID_405610533" MODIFIED="1363019379159" TEXT="Maybe one of the registry reps could take a look at those and determine whether they would be a good basis for a session?"/>
<node CREATED="1363019383479" ID="ID_400917872" MODIFIED="1363019425757" TEXT="Maybe also reach out to some of the providers -- at least for TDRP?"/>
<node CREATED="1363019426431" ID="ID_366679881" MODIFIED="1363019448933" TEXT="Barbara Knight has stepped forward -- LARS gets to forward the slides to her">
<node CREATED="1364228424374" ID="ID_1929197847" MODIFIED="1364228471183" TEXT="Action:  Barbara to develop a process diagram of the current practice would be really helpful"/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364225864812" ID="ID_632893079" MODIFIED="1364225876140" POSITION="right" TEXT="Charter question discussion">
<node CREATED="1363019478565" ID="ID_696752061" MODIFIED="1369061524832" TEXT="a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;">
<node CREATED="1363019553872" ID="ID_1992390028" MODIFIED="1363019571962" TEXT="What has changed since this question was posed?"/>
<node CREATED="1363020457565" ID="ID_1512429815" MODIFIED="1363020467690" TEXT="Poll stakeholders for their sentiment?"/>
<node CREATED="1367249333718" ID="ID_1139076061" MODIFIED="1367249439961" TEXT="WG ran head on into the problem of consistency of data when trying to collect data on current situation.  Data is sketchy and hard to reconcile/analyze."/>
<node CREATED="1367250818520" ID="ID_1172877885" MODIFIED="1367250860317" TEXT="Registries are in favor of eliminating a step in the process -- comment is misplaced in this topic, but needs to be acknowledged and incorporated into our results"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1363020283179" ID="ID_514340235" MODIFIED="1363020285710" TEXT="b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;">
<node CREATED="1364228040050" ID="ID_68618835" MODIFIED="1364228051187" TEXT="Sometimes called &quot;domain laundering&quot;">
<node CREATED="1364228077500" ID="ID_1092383337" MODIFIED="1364228108214" TEXT="this would confound efforts of Registrars to work through this at their level -- thus only the Registries could address it"/>
<node CREATED="1364228123907" ID="ID_1706991379" MODIFIED="1364228138758" TEXT="Use case -- during sunrise"/>
<node CREATED="1364228139252" ID="ID_667339247" MODIFIED="1364228169785" TEXT="When this was written, less-mature aftermarket -- which may make it easier to hijack/launder"/>
<node CREATED="1364228197459" ID="ID_1599455505" MODIFIED="1364228217159" TEXT="Much of this may have been addressed in IRTP-C -- 30 day window, and owner-change rules"/>
<node CREATED="1364228249897" ID="ID_1264167074" MODIFIED="1364228286381" TEXT="How is TDRP being used today -- often?  only needed for very unusual events"/>
<node CREATED="1364228677252" ID="ID_1005581864" MODIFIED="1364228723355" TEXT="TDRP applies to all gTLDs -- but registry operators can also put supplimental rules in place -- and registrars agree to those rules ">
<node CREATED="1364228724119" ID="ID_43913548" MODIFIED="1364228739825" TEXT="Action: poll registries with regard to supplimental rules"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1363020404555" ID="ID_588568384" MODIFIED="1364227645013" TEXT="This one is a good candidate for &quot;more data&quot; to determine whether there is really a problem">
<node CREATED="1363020480561" ID="ID_1672087838" MODIFIED="1363020491664" TEXT="Anonymizing"/>
<node CREATED="1363020574105" ID="ID_110922376" MODIFIED="1363020591722" TEXT="Likely easier to get data from registrars &quot;early&quot; in the chain"/>
<node CREATED="1363020614943" ID="ID_188122116" MODIFIED="1363020626373" TEXT="Acknowledge that the data may be biased in this way"/>
<node CREATED="1363020644935" ID="ID_1962226101" MODIFIED="1363020677306" TEXT="May be indicative but not complete, as its going to be harder to get data from &quot;late in the chain&quot; registrars"/>
<node CREATED="1363020860137" ID="ID_1756904441" MODIFIED="1363020898139" TEXT="At the registry level, very few data points"/>
<node CREATED="1363020975967" ID="ID_1375121147" MODIFIED="1363021009503" TEXT="Registrars also have a hard time identifying these -- because they tend to look like a transfer.  So complaints are about the only way to tell"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364227800525" ID="ID_137600184" MODIFIED="1364227816591" TEXT="Questions to ask">
<node CREATED="1364227816638" ID="ID_1415993339" MODIFIED="1364227824927" TEXT="How common is this?">
<node CREATED="1364227881131" ID="ID_481186561" MODIFIED="1364227900966" TEXT="Urgent/emergency issues tend to be handled before TDRP"/>
<node CREATED="1364227976531" ID="ID_1301563637" MODIFIED="1364227997199" TEXT="Verisign is seeing less of this today than in the past"/>
<node CREATED="1364228636268" ID="ID_1657743876" MODIFIED="1364228655337" TEXT="Two kinds of statistics -- how common for registries.  how common for registrars?"/>
<node CREATED="1364229053858" ID="ID_204765412" MODIFIED="1364229086832" TEXT="Don&apos;t leave 3rd party dispute resolution providers in the statistics-collection process">
<node CREATED="1364229089926" ID="ID_458327867" MODIFIED="1364229094538" TEXT="3-5/month"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364228755642" ID="ID_664509211" MODIFIED="1364228791519" TEXT="What are the implications, from the reigstrants&apos; point of view -- what would they do, how would they recover the money they&apos;ve spent, what would their recourse be?">
<node CREATED="1364228850356" ID="ID_690924319" MODIFIED="1364228892815" TEXT="it will be hard for Ry/Rrs to determine whether transfers have been done in good faith "/>
<node CREATED="1364228917817" ID="ID_127436081" MODIFIED="1364228917817" TEXT="he problem exists when people come into possession of stolen merchandise in any scenario"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364227944379" ID="ID_348179585" MODIFIED="1364227959300" TEXT="Hard to recreate the scenarios that this question was posed to address"/>
<node CREATED="1368457772491" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_436522930" MODIFIED="1369061518528" TEXT="Public comments">
<node CREATED="1368457783444" ID="ID_149094177" MODIFIED="1368458791902" TEXT="BC  Provisions to address multiple transfers -- domain hopping">
<node CREATED="1368457942018" ID="ID_400109086" MODIFIED="1368457974693" TEXT="By &quot;provisions&quot; there&apos;s a lot of flexibility -- not just process, but perhaps education and guidance.  "/>
<node CREATED="1368458009350" ID="ID_9479098" MODIFIED="1368458045603" TEXT="A lot of major Registrars have adopted a rule to reject trnasfers within 60 days -- unfortunately that leaves the avenue open"/>
<node CREATED="1368458077919" ID="ID_1382749267" MODIFIED="1368458100547" TEXT="What about legitimate transfers that are being &quot;clawed back&quot;"/>
<node CREATED="1368458204876" ID="ID_1267609637" MODIFIED="1368459664735" TEXT="&quot;Change of registrant&quot; rules from IRTP-C may bear on this as well"/>
<node CREATED="1368458484979" ID="ID_997955877" MODIFIED="1368458693283" TEXT="Proposal -- allowing a broader scope of Registrars in the chain of events -- it came to me legitimately, it left me legitimately">
<node CREATED="1368458605275" ID="ID_1605476931" MODIFIED="1368458623650" TEXT="2 v. multiple registrars"/>
<node CREATED="1368458628844" ID="ID_1388865936" MODIFIED="1368458743598" TEXT="30-60 days?"/>
<node CREATED="1368458744460" ID="ID_807006111" MODIFIED="1368458757018" TEXT="lock domain until the dispute is resolved"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368458650973" ID="ID_1321175098" MODIFIED="1368458706805" TEXT="Proposal -- Maybe some of the lessons from UDRP locking PDP can be mirrored in TDRP"/>
<node CREATED="1368459701816" ID="ID_780003178" MODIFIED="1368459768971" TEXT="Proposal: should we clarify rules/best practices as to who should be authorized to make domain name transfers">
<node CREATED="1368459796564" ID="ID_222089799" MODIFIED="1368459835346" TEXT="Addressed in prior IRTP"/>
<node CREATED="1368459980457" ID="ID_1574575475" MODIFIED="1368460007145" TEXT="current -- we send FOA to Registrant"/>
<node CREATED="1368460007615" ID="ID_1513168722" MODIFIED="1368460140126" TEXT="Thick Whois would solve some of these issue"/>
<node CREATED="1368460183441" ID="ID_1297249932" MODIFIED="1368460268175" TEXT="Action: we may want to revisit that issue -- since we&apos;re the last IRTP PDP -- in recognition of interdependencies -- especially as it would help us reach our goal"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368458808249" ID="ID_1868974313" MODIFIED="1368463727356" TEXT="Ry 6 months &quot;statute of limitations&quot;  consistant application of 60-day restriction would improve this">
<node CREATED="1368458876120" ID="ID_616588299" MODIFIED="1368458902954" TEXT="RY Modify TDRP to clarify impact on subsequent transfers"/>
<node CREATED="1368458937185" ID="ID_1728076276" MODIFIED="1368458967855" TEXT="How should Ry and DRPs handle the &quot;multiple hop problem&quot;?">
<node CREATED="1368458968921" ID="ID_171348645" MODIFIED="1368458985406" TEXT="More proactivtely engage the Rr&apos;s during the process"/>
<node CREATED="1368458990027" ID="ID_1337442614" MODIFIED="1368459001899" TEXT="At a minimum the last registrar"/>
<node CREATED="1368459002379" ID="ID_1323244518" MODIFIED="1368459018312" TEXT="Come up with standard processes/procedures as to how to handle that"/>
<node CREATED="1368459037884" ID="ID_1771899226" MODIFIED="1368459089648" TEXT="Proposal: in the event that hopping is detected -- all registrars would be required to participate in the process of resolving the situation -- so the TDRP provider can piece together the sequence of events.">
<node CREATED="1368459090793" ID="ID_1222874672" MODIFIED="1368459122656" TEXT="That might also encourge Rrs to adopt best practives"/>
<node CREATED="1368459127300" ID="ID_426664968" MODIFIED="1368459165294" TEXT="Concern:  Make sure that Rrs actually provide informantion -- many times there&apos;s no response from other Rr&apos;s in the case"/>
<node CREATED="1368459221710" ID="ID_1523996209" MODIFIED="1368459247231" TEXT="Proposal: require RESPONSE, not necessarily data"/>
<node CREATED="1368459297377" ID="ID_721771057" MODIFIED="1368459323830" TEXT="There should always be some minimal data available to verify the legitimacy of the transfer - FOA, logs">
<node CREATED="1368459482542" ID="ID_10175483" MODIFIED="1368459500826" TEXT="at a minimum, the documentation they&apos;re required to collect during the xfer process"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368459389807" ID="ID_1653251019" MODIFIED="1368459421311" TEXT="May want to mirror the TEAC requirements -- as a model/jumping off point"/>
<node CREATED="1368459506043" ID="ID_1728584764" MODIFIED="1368459530393" TEXT="Question:  how many days, how many hops?  may need further discussion"/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364226050076" ID="ID_1465660822" MODIFIED="1369061205426" TEXT="c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);">
<node CREATED="1364228987955" ID="ID_1688381311" MODIFIED="1364229015440" TEXT="Current situation:  Registrar is the &quot;gatekeeper&quot; between registrants and this process">
<node CREATED="1364229345662" ID="ID_1138110395" MODIFIED="1364229425436" TEXT="the only way for a registrant to proceed is through the courts -- maybe a better solution is to require all domain-service contracts to provide the path for the registrant to compel this -- maybe better to let them file a TDRP directly, paralleling UDRP"/>
<node CREATED="1364229427056" ID="ID_560174547" MODIFIED="1364229449050" TEXT="Goal: providing a mechanism for the registrant to participate int he process directly"/>
<node CREATED="1364229453943" ID="ID_541123088" MODIFIED="1364229490462" TEXT="Option: a mechanism for the registrant to start the process, which then leads to mechanisms to compel the other parties to participate in the process"/>
<node CREATED="1364229491305" ID="ID_1027849395" MODIFIED="1364229505188" TEXT="Concern: authenticate the registrant ">
<node CREATED="1364229505390" ID="ID_1230558544" MODIFIED="1364229530356" TEXT="neither thin registries or 2nd level providers have a direct mechanism to do this directly"/>
<node CREATED="1364229530837" ID="ID_1666281289" MODIFIED="1364229545688" TEXT="would need to get back to the registrar of record"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364229097711" ID="ID_646047138" MODIFIED="1364229143089" TEXT="3rd party dispute resolution providers are seeing direct requests from registrants">
<node CREATED="1364229252399" ID="ID_1304754479" MODIFIED="1364229292855" TEXT="provides another avenue for registrants to jump-start the process"/>
<node CREATED="1364229209041" ID="ID_1436757299" MODIFIED="1364229250766" TEXT="contracts between registrant/registrar to deal with hijacking?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364229144050" ID="ID_1223416543" MODIFIED="1364229161243" TEXT="Do we know why Registrars are refusing?">
<node CREATED="1364229161244" ID="ID_383884609" MODIFIED="1364229164964" TEXT="Cost?"/>
<node CREATED="1364229167573" ID="ID_61006842" MODIFIED="1364229179116" TEXT="Maybe registrant could offer to pay the fee?"/>
<node CREATED="1364229564183" ID="ID_1524279613" MODIFIED="1364229581373" TEXT="are Rr&apos;s in breach of the policy if they refuse?  who adjudicates?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364229622739" ID="ID_563716074" MODIFIED="1367248113419" TEXT="Implication: TDRP may need to be reengineered to accomodate the addition of a registrant &quot;start point&quot;">
<node CREATED="1364229653411" ID="ID_856634024" MODIFIED="1364229686403" TEXT="Perhaps a simpler approach would be a mechanism to compel the Rr to act"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367248114610" ID="ID_593085500" MODIFIED="1369064828319" TEXT="Statistics have come in -- insert here">
<node CREATED="1367248195956" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_1793538234" MODIFIED="1368456879003" TEXT="Questions">
<node CREATED="1367248200406" ID="ID_606839688" MODIFIED="1367248253540" TEXT="How many result in the reversal of the transfer?  it would be interesting to evaluate &quot;no-decision&quot; cases">
<node CREATED="1367248280826" ID="ID_1233759698" MODIFIED="1367248280826" TEXT="Kristine Dorrain: Not every TDRP is because a domain name was transferred in error.  You can also file them if you tried to transfer your domain name and it didn&apos;t happen."/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367248315296" ID="ID_1320716256" MODIFIED="1367248336453" TEXT="How many requests come directly from Registrants?  "/>
<node CREATED="1367248373425" ID="ID_403947912" MODIFIED="1367248682165" TEXT="What does &quot;no decision&quot; mean?">
<node CREATED="1367248535184" ID="ID_97252050" MODIFIED="1367248552857" TEXT="Insufficient information"/>
<node CREATED="1367248574028" ID="ID_405141213" MODIFIED="1367248574028" TEXT="Kristine Dorrain: from the TDRP: 3.3.4 If the data provided by neither Registrar appears to be conclusive, then the Registry shall issue a finding of &quot;no decision.&quot; If the data provided to the Registry is complete and provides sufficient basis for a determination based on the Policy, the Registry may not issue a finding of &quot;no decision.&quot; Either Registrar shall be able to appeal such issue to a Second-Level Dispute Resolution Provider in accordance with the provisions set forth below."/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367248683297" ID="ID_1493254850" MODIFIED="1367248703459" TEXT="May be hard to determine -- there&apos;s a lack of uniformity in reporting standards"/>
<node CREATED="1367248908432" ID="ID_1262416123" MODIFIED="1367248950298" TEXT="Registry tracking">
<node CREATED="1367248950298" ID="ID_1346120260" MODIFIED="1367248950298" TEXT=""/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367249274903" ID="ID_1247203123" MODIFIED="1367249311629" TEXT="Comparison between Ry and DR provider"/>
<node CREATED="1367250055014" ID="ID_806549266" MODIFIED="1367250065985" TEXT="Response from Rr"/>
<node CREATED="1367250066454" ID="ID_1403140714" MODIFIED="1367250072105" TEXT="Apeal to 2nd level"/>
<node CREATED="1367250074285" ID="ID_981284000" MODIFIED="1367250082917" TEXT="was there a decision?">
<node CREATED="1367250082918" ID="ID_281878407" MODIFIED="1367250101943" TEXT="if so, which way?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367250107540" ID="ID_476509347" MODIFIED="1367250107540" TEXT=""/>
<node CREATED="1367250249273" ID="ID_1657622645" MODIFIED="1367250249273" TEXT="Bladel: Q:  If the TDRP results in a &quot;no-decision&quot;, must it go to 2nd level TDRP, or could it result in a UDRP?  If so, is there any way to track that?"/>
<node CREATED="1367250359062" ID="ID_1188582955" MODIFIED="1367250359062" TEXT="Kristine Dorrain: Q: How many of the TDRP cases (first or second level) are due to an improper transfer and how many were because a transfer request was &quot;nacked&quot;?"/>
<node CREATED="1367250386545" ID="ID_1184584733" MODIFIED="1367250386545" TEXT="Barbara Knight-RySG: Q:  How many of the disputes have been appealed to the second level providers."/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367251738999" ID="ID_1435641938" MODIFIED="1367251797831" TEXT="Questions for Barbara to analyze">
<node CREATED="1367252227611" ID="ID_17536931" MODIFIED="1367252254851" TEXT="What was the reason that the TDRP was requested?">
<node CREATED="1367251838996" ID="ID_918877616" MODIFIED="1367251838996" TEXT="Kristine Dorrain: Q: How many of the TDRP cases (first or second level) are due to an improper transfer and how many were because a transfer request was &quot;nacked&quot;?"/>
<node CREATED="1367252254854" ID="ID_961856695" MODIFIED="1367252729860" TEXT="Are there other reasons why TDRPs are requested?  If so, what are they?"/>
<node CREATED="1367252730701" ID="ID_1284495832" MODIFIED="1367252775696" TEXT="Is there a way to get a count of the number of TDRPs requested directly by Registrants (and presumably denied)?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367252301692" ID="ID_1143863400" MODIFIED="1367252636308" TEXT="If the decision was in the win/loss column">
<node CREATED="1367251980774" ID="ID_303940554" MODIFIED="1367252367211" TEXT="What&apos;s the proportion of wins vs lossses?"/>
<node CREATED="1367252367988" ID="ID_1659834225" MODIFIED="1367252407444" TEXT="How many of these Registry decisions were eventually appealed to the 2nd level DRP?"/>
<node CREATED="1367252570242" ID="ID_1422454243" MODIFIED="1367252618282" TEXT="Is there any information as to the final disposition of these disputes -- eg UDRP, TDRP, court case?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367252425792" ID="ID_1802080570" MODIFIED="1367252549131" TEXT="If the decision was &quot;no decision&quot;">
<node CREATED="1367252438780" ID="ID_199485058" MODIFIED="1367252479756" TEXT="What is the breakdown of reasons why that conclusion was reached?"/>
<node CREATED="1367252367988" ID="ID_995812162" MODIFIED="1367252407444" TEXT="How many of these Registry decisions were eventually appealed to the 2nd level DRP?"/>
<node CREATED="1367252570242" ID="ID_1773157082" MODIFIED="1367252618282" TEXT="Is there any information as to the final disposition of these disputes -- eg UDRP, TDRP, court case?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367251783408" ID="ID_32991121" MODIFIED="1367251783408" TEXT="Bladel: Q:  If the TDRP results in a &quot;no-decision&quot;, must it go to 2nd level TDRP, or could it result in a UDRP?  If so, is there any way to track that?"/>
<node CREATED="1367252041580" ID="ID_1759007054" MODIFIED="1367252074378" TEXT="Of the &quot;no decision&quot; cases -- what&apos;s the breakdown of reasons why?"/>
<node CREATED="1367251853393" ID="ID_1770753039" MODIFIED="1367251853393" TEXT="Barbara Knight-RySG: Q:  How many of the disputes have been appealed to the second level providers.">
<node CREATED="1367252152832" ID="ID_132423469" MODIFIED="1367252194528" TEXT="Of those appealed decisions, what was the proportion wins, losses, no-decisions?"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367251800638" ID="ID_1049362986" MODIFIED="1367253047475" TEXT="Questions for 2nd-level DR providers">
<node CREATED="1367251814875" ID="ID_1218484181" MODIFIED="1367251816614" TEXT="Barbara Knight-RySG: Q of the Second Level TRDP providers - Of those cases that they have received, have they received documentation from both parties to the dispute?"/>
<node CREATED="1367251952165" ID="ID_1181490330" MODIFIED="1367251965174" TEXT="How many requests come directly from registrants?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367251871389" ID="ID_1157523425" MODIFIED="1367253098088" TEXT="Questions for Registrars">
<node CREATED="1367251881048" ID="ID_1922158309" MODIFIED="1367251882530" TEXT="Kristine Dorrain: Q:  for the Registrar mediated xfrs (this would not be for Barbara!)...are they more likely to be an improper transfer or an improper denial of transfer?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737189" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_1588951760" MODIFIED="1369064862378" TEXT="TDRP-related Data from ICANN Compliance, Verisign, Dispute Providers, and selected Registrars">
<node CREATED="1368793737192" MODIFIED="1368793737192" TEXT="ICANN Compliance received 6594 IRTP-related complaints between January 2012 and February 2013">
<node CREATED="1368793737194" MODIFIED="1368793737194" TEXT="2778 complaints were invalid"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737194" MODIFIED="1368793737194" TEXT="3816 complaints were valid">
<node CREATED="1368793737194" MODIFIED="1368793737194" TEXT="47 of these were related to unauthorized  transfers">
<node CREATED="1368793737196" MODIFIED="1368793737196" TEXT="31 complaints were related to email hijacking or hijacking of access to registrant&apos;s control panel"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737198" MODIFIED="1368793737198" TEXT="16 complaints related to unauthorised transfers"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737199" MODIFIED="1368793737199" TEXT="none of the involved registrars stated or provided evidence that they initiated a TDRP procedure">
<node CREATED="1368793737200" MODIFIED="1368793737200" TEXT="Key-Systems has not initiated a TDRP procedure in the last 5-6 years"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737202" MODIFIED="1368793737202" TEXT="Tucows has taken part in approximately four TDRPs ever"/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737204" MODIFIED="1368793737204" TEXT="154 TDRP cases were filed with Versign since September 2009">
<node CREATED="1368793737206" MODIFIED="1368793737206" TEXT="109 were Requests for Enforcement">
<node CREATED="1368793737207" MODIFIED="1368793737207" TEXT="59 decisions were rendered in which 28 times the filing registrar prevailed and 19 times the non-filing registrar; 2 cases were &apos;nacked&apos;">
<node CREATED="1368793737209" MODIFIED="1368793737209" TEXT="In 37 cases comeone other than the admin contact or registererd name holder listed in the Losing Registrar&apos;s Whois record authorized the transfer"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737211" MODIFIED="1368793737211" TEXT="In 8 cases the admin contact authrozied the transfer without the knowledge of the registered name holder"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737212" MODIFIED="1368793737212" TEXT="In 5 casesthe gaining registrar failed to obtain express wirtten consent of the transfer from the admin contact or registered name holder"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737214" MODIFIED="1368793737214" TEXT="In 3 cases the payment for the domains was disputed"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737216" MODIFIED="1368793737216" TEXT="In 2 cases the domain was transferre without the original registrant&apos;s appoval"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737218" MODIFIED="1368793737218" TEXT="In 2 cases the gaining registrar fialed to provide an FOA within 5 days of request"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737220" MODIFIED="1368793737220" TEXT="In 1 case the losing registrar failed to provide evidence relied on for denial of transfer when requested"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737222" MODIFIED="1368793737222" TEXT="One &apos;other&apos; case"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737222" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_606998678" MODIFIED="1368793794103" TEXT="Relevant TDRP Regulation">
<node CREATED="1368793737223" MODIFIED="1368793737223" TEXT="Either the Gaining or Registrar of Record (&quot;Filing Registrar&quot;) may submit a Request for Enforcement. (Section 3.1.1 TDRP)   The Request for Enforcement shall annex the following documentary evidence: [&#x2026;]   For the Gaining Registrar: FOA; Copy of the Whois output for the date transfer was initiated, which was used to identify the authorized Transfer Contacts;  Copy of evidence of identity used; [&#x2026;].  For the Registrar of Record: Completed FOA from Registrar of Record; Copy of the Whois output for the date the transfer was initiated; Relevant history of Whois modifications made to the applicable registration; [&#x2026;]  Evidence of one of the following if a transfer was denied: fraud; [&#x2026;] Registrant or administrative contact identity dispute; [&#x2026;]; express written objection from the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact; LOCK status along with proof of a reasonable means for the registrant to remove LOCK status; domain name within 60 days of initial registration; or domain name within 60 days of a prior transfer. (Section 3.1.4 TDRP)"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737228" ID="ID_1716274277" MODIFIED="1368793737228" TEXT="50 times a no-decision was rendered">
<node CREATED="1368793737228" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_1518253396" MODIFIED="1368793796070" TEXT="Relevant TDRP Regulation">
<node CREATED="1368793737229" MODIFIED="1368793737229" TEXT="If the data provided by neither Registrar appears to be conclusive, then the Registry shall issue a finding of &quot;no decision.&quot; If the data provided to the Registry is complete and provides sufficient basis for a determination based on the Policy, the Registry may not issue a finding of &quot;no decision.&quot; Either Registrar shall be able to appeal such issue to a Second-Level Dispute Resolution Provider in accordance with the provisions set forth below. (Section 3.3.4 TDRP)"/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737231" MODIFIED="1368793737231" TEXT="45 were Applications for Reinstatement of Sponsorship"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737233" MODIFIED="1368793737233" TEXT="Relevant TDRP Regulation">
<node CREATED="1368793737234" MODIFIED="1368793737234" TEXT="A dispute must be filed no later than six (6) months after the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy. (Section 2.3 TDRP)"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737235" ID="ID_1209363768" MODIFIED="1368793737235" TEXT="10 TDRP cases were filed with second-level dispute providers">
<node CREATED="1368793737237" ID="ID_1001124747" MODIFIED="1368793737237" TEXT="6 cases filed with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)">
<node CREATED="1368793737239" MODIFIED="1368793737239" TEXT="At the first level (of those 6 decisions), the gaining registrar prevailed once, one request was denied and four resulted in no-decisions"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737241" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_1093892590" MODIFIED="1368793900392" TEXT="All 6 cases were appeals of first level decisions">
<node CREATED="1368793737283" ID="ID_1694186985" MODIFIED="1368793737283" TEXT="A Dispute Resolution Provider must request all documentation relating to the First-Level Dispute from the applicable Registry Operator no later than seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the appeal. The Registry Operator shall submit such documentation to the Dispute Resolution Provider within seven (7) days of such request. (Section 4.3.7 TDRP)"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737242" MODIFIED="1368793737242" TEXT="The Appellant prevailed in 5 cases; the Appellee prevailed in 1 case"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737244" MODIFIED="1368793737244" TEXT="5 of these cases were fraudulent transfers and 1 case was an attempted transfer"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737245" MODIFIED="1368793737245" TEXT="4 cases filed with the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC)">
<node CREATED="1368793737247" MODIFIED="1368793737247" TEXT="All four cases suffered from procedural issues"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737248" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_1040751451" MODIFIED="1368793874280" TEXT="The Appellee failed to provide sufficient information in all four cases">
<node CREATED="1368793737250" MODIFIED="1368793737250" TEXT="4.3.8 The Dispute Resolution Panel must review all applicable documentation and reach a conclusion not later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the Appeal. (i) The Dispute Resolution Panel may submit questions to the Registry, the Appellant or Appellee. (ii) Responses to all such questions must be received by the Dispute Resolution Panel within 7 days. (Section 4.3.8 TDRP)"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737252" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_1086606481" MODIFIED="1368793863863" TEXT="The Appellant failed to provide sufficient information in 2 cases">
<node CREATED="1368793737254" ID="ID_273507741" MODIFIED="1368793737254" TEXT="4.3.4 The Appellant shall submit the Appeal in electronic form and shall: [&#x2026;] Provide the name, postal and e-mail addresses, and the telephone and telefax numbers of the Appellant and of any representative authorized by the Appellant to act on behalf of the Appellant in the administrative proceeding; Provide the name of the Appellee and all information (including any postal and e-mail addresses and telephone and telefax numbers) known to Appellee regarding how to contact Appellee or any representative of Appellee, including contact information based on pre-Request for Enforcement and pre-Appeal dealings; [&#x2026;]; State the basis for such appeal, including specific responses to the findings of the Registry Operator in the First-Level Dispute process; [&#x2026;}; State that a copy of the Appeal, together with the cover sheet as prescribed by the Dispute Resolution Provider&apos;s Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Appellee; and (x) Conclude with the following statement followed by the signature of the Appellant or its authorized representative: &quot;Appellant agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute&apos;s resolution shall be solely against the  Appellee and waives all such claims and remedies against the Dispute Resolution Provider and the Registry Operator as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence.&quot; &quot;Appellant certifies that the information contained in this Appeal is to the best of Appellant&apos;s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Appeal is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Appeal are warranted under this Policy and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.&quot;"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737275" MODIFIED="1368793737275" TEXT="only 1 case was properly arbitrated - with the Appellant prevailing cases"/>
<node CREATED="1368793737277" MODIFIED="1368793737277" TEXT="In 2 cases no-decision was rendered, in 1 case the ADNDRC determined that it had no jurisdiction to render a decisions"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368793737279" FOLDED="true" ID="ID_289281763" MODIFIED="1368793801167" TEXT="Relevant TDRP Regulation">
<node CREATED="1368793737280" ID="ID_1469759988" MODIFIED="1368793737280" TEXT="The services of the Dispute Resolution Panel may be invoked in any of the following two situations: (i) A Filing Registrar may elect to skip the First-Level dispute process at Registry level and submit a Request for Enforcement directly with a Dispute Resolution Provider; (ii) The non-prevailing Registrar in a First-Level dispute proceeding may submit an appeal of the applicable Registry Operator&apos;s decision to the Dispute Resolution Provider. Additionally, in the case where the result in the First-Level dispute process is a &quot;no-decision,&quot; either Registrar may file an Appeal of such decision to a Dispute Resolution Provider. (Section 4.1 TDRP)  In the event that the Registrar which does not prevail in the First-Level dispute is dissatisfied by the Registry-Operator&apos;s decision, such Registrar may file an appeal with a Dispute Resolution Provider, provided that such appeal is filed no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the date on which the First-Level decision was issued. (Section 4.3.1 TDRP)"/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1369064848326" ID="ID_1149947582" MODIFIED="1369064860212" TEXT="Discussion of Lars&apos; summary/analysis of the data"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367249474422" ID="ID_1060434728" MODIFIED="1367249484189" TEXT="Currently very rarely used">
<node CREATED="1367249531291" ID="ID_371366495" MODIFIED="1367249538526" TEXT="refer to statistics here"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367249693021" ID="ID_276158184" MODIFIED="1367249713795" TEXT="What happens when a Respondent doesn&apos;t submit information">
<node CREATED="1367249713797" ID="ID_930298160" MODIFIED="1367249753003" TEXT="each case varies -- in many cases these result in &quot;no-decision&quot;"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1367250122390" ID="ID_1992179615" MODIFIED="1367250142023" TEXT="are all Registries dealing with TDRP in a similar manner?">
<node CREATED="1367250187820" ID="ID_1065252820" MODIFIED="1367250200579" TEXT="what level of proof is necessary?"/>
<node CREATED="1367250201084" ID="ID_499413314" MODIFIED="1367250213787" TEXT="are the evaluations the same?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1368459575748" ID="ID_1983976403" MODIFIED="1368459581738" TEXT="Public comments">
<node CREATED="1368459581739" ID="ID_575336760" MODIFIED="1368460660986" TEXT="BC -- believes that there should be a mechanism for Registrants to initiate a TDRP"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364226050295" ID="ID_644112374" MODIFIED="1364230096950" TEXT="d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants">
<node CREATED="1364230101113" ID="ID_1813127325" MODIFIED="1364230116313" TEXT="Key issue -- disclosure">
<node CREATED="1364230123861" ID="ID_270517600" MODIFIED="1364230137565" TEXT="What are current practices"/>
<node CREATED="1364230145394" ID="ID_424975533" MODIFIED="1364230182598" TEXT="Challenge: tradeoff between ease of understanding vs tight definitions of all use-cases"/>
<node CREATED="1364230306489" ID="ID_1184389752" MODIFIED="1364230306489" TEXT="Is that the sort of information tht shouldd be in the Registrants Rights &amp; Responsibilities?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1369062509373" ID="ID_1110337667" MODIFIED="1369062515614" TEXT="Public comments">
<node CREATED="1369062515617" ID="ID_956666963" MODIFIED="1369064133623" TEXT="BC supports establishing requirements for Registrars publish">
<node CREATED="1369062660699" ID="ID_397277190" MODIFIED="1369062671953" TEXT="Mikey&apos;s supporting &quot;require&quot;"/>
<node CREATED="1369062693775" ID="ID_171070558" MODIFIED="1369062708268" TEXT="Bob M. is surprised that they&apos;re not available">
<node CREATED="1369063220726" ID="ID_1469598068" MODIFIED="1369063245502" TEXT="Is there a workload concern?  Otherwise I can&apos;t think of any other reason not to support this"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1369062722496" ID="ID_1796508320" MODIFIED="1369062840726" TEXT="James - this kindof goes back to Question C -- if Registrars aren&apos;t offering that, what would they offer?  Where would the disclosure go?  We would prefer not to have ICANN prescribing where this information goes -- hopefully it goes into Registration Agreement, or Rights and Responsibilities">
<node CREATED="1369063303122" ID="ID_1734309674" MODIFIED="1369063315028" TEXT="More information and disclosure is always good"/>
<node CREATED="1369063661503" ID="ID_1573710249" MODIFIED="1369063725653" TEXT="James -- was primary drafter of the &quot;rights and responsibility&quot; section of the RAA -- info about the customer services available, and how to raise concerns and resolve disputes -- it should be part of that general support"/>
<node CREATED="1369063895684" ID="ID_1443438621" MODIFIED="1369063915453" TEXT="Want to avoid crossing the line and offering a guarantee of any outcome"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1369062864123" ID="ID_1199989147" MODIFIED="1369062959932" TEXT="Alan -- highlights &quot;options availabe&quot; in the language -- Alan tends to agree, that Registrants need to be informed of their *options* irrespective of whether we expand availability">
<node CREATED="1369063286582" ID="ID_1319076212" MODIFIED="1369063286582" TEXT="Alan Greenberg: In rights and resp IF it iis a right that we give them. BUt now, it is just awaremness that it is a registrar option"/>
<node CREATED="1369063435951" ID="ID_1449613995" MODIFIED="1369063445134" TEXT="Agrees with Simonetta&apos;s points"/>
<node CREATED="1369063453298" ID="ID_1084079190" MODIFIED="1369063492191" TEXT="Clarifies -- I&apos;m not sure that listing these things as a &quot;right&quot; unless it really is"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1369063148231" ID="ID_1301590119" MODIFIED="1369063194439" TEXT="Holly -- Rights and Responsibilities document is out for comment -- put general information that it&apos;s available, and describe where it is"/>
<node CREATED="1369063338255" ID="ID_1028499798" MODIFIED="1369063416819" TEXT="Simonetta -- cites an example of how clueless a customer is  - they don&apos;t know who to contact, what to do, what options are -- these would be really helpful, right now it&apos;s very hard to find this infromation today -- maybe in the form of an FAQ -- so that you as a customer know what to do and what your options are">
<node CREATED="1369063793657" ID="ID_1879030213" MODIFIED="1369063818186" TEXT="If the registrar isn&apos;t responsible -- then who is?">
<node CREATED="1369063837330" ID="ID_1257330394" MODIFIED="1369063862915" TEXT="If they aren&apos;t, you&apos;re leaving the registrant in a bad spot -- the only reasonable entity that can help them is their registrar"/>
<node CREATED="1369063875535" ID="ID_649763390" MODIFIED="1369063889556" TEXT="Registrants not being able to figure out what to do is not a good situation"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1369063930424" ID="ID_1166044159" MODIFIED="1369063959013" TEXT="Barbara -- Implementation of best practice could be a link back to an ICANN-maintained page">
<node CREATED="1369063984368" ID="ID_81300721" MODIFIED="1369064033489" TEXT="ICANN has already done a lot with regard to FAQs and transfer-dispute options -- maybe we could add best practices on that page -- then make the link back to that page required"/>
<node CREATED="1369064050799" ID="ID_1885174487" MODIFIED="1369064090740" TEXT="James:  advantage would be a centralized location for consistency etc. -- side thought, wondering how many hits that page gets"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1369064135140" ID="ID_561892643" MODIFIED="1369064150265" TEXT="Registry comment (#8)">
<node CREATED="1369064293868" ID="ID_1439865301" MODIFIED="1369064323975" TEXT="James -- reemphasises what we discussed in the BC comment"/>
<node CREATED="1369064324715" ID="ID_448158273" MODIFIED="1369064344626" TEXT="Bob -- how would best practices get written/maintained?">
<node CREATED="1369064344628" ID="ID_1703002605" MODIFIED="1369064407462" TEXT="James -- there isn&apos;t a process for developing Best Practice documents -- no shared/common protocol to do this">
<node CREATED="1369064659247" ID="ID_1239848644" MODIFIED="1369064676676" TEXT="Maybe this could be done in Implementation Review Team context -- Mikey"/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364226050298" ID="ID_1646347145" MODIFIED="1364230254991" TEXT="e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy">
<node CREATED="1370271811629" ID="ID_1425292714" MODIFIED="1370271817754" TEXT="Public comments">
<node CREATED="1370271817755" ID="ID_1823347345" MODIFIED="1370272096020" TEXT="BC - hopes that the 2013 RAA addresses this issue">
<node CREATED="1370272096025" ID="ID_33882714" MODIFIED="1370272114699" TEXT="Comment was made before the RAA had finalized"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1370272117410" ID="ID_1190148270" MODIFIED="1370272163248" TEXT="James -- draft RAA does include more of a &quot;gradiant&quot; structure - with increasing sancitions -- "/>
<node CREATED="1370272163816" ID="ID_767840530" MODIFIED="1370272487277" TEXT="James -- supports an overarching sanction structure, rather than policy by polic -- perhaps this is a meta issue that we need to recommend -- but it&apos;s a tricky scope issue -- maybe we can recommend, and encourage a broader discussion either in future PDPs or as an independent one -- "/>
<node CREATED="1370272493723" ID="ID_1243648184" MODIFIED="1370272542384" TEXT="RySG satisfied with 2009 RAA agreement "/>
<node CREATED="1370272618341" ID="ID_1433591585" MODIFIED="1370273996078" TEXT="Tentative  answer - &quot;yes, they&apos;re sufficient&quot;"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364226050301" ID="ID_247226911" MODIFIED="1364226050301" TEXT="f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.">
<node CREATED="1370272793886" ID="ID_1140216251" MODIFIED="1370272798484" TEXT="Public comments">
<node CREATED="1370272798486" ID="ID_235286145" MODIFIED="1370272987099" TEXT="Mountain - is this a change of info in the FOA (needing Rrs to change systems), or is this just the question about eliminating the &quot;second channel&quot;?"/>
<node CREATED="1370272989030" ID="ID_1895147773" MODIFIED="1370273037329" TEXT="Bladel - question assumes that EPP that is universally accepted?  not sure whether that&apos;s required.  -- Ry&apos;s or staff"/>
<node CREATED="1370273038091" ID="ID_1703161696" MODIFIED="1370273151738" TEXT="BC - in cases involving unauthorized requests this helps protect from hijacking - useful paper trail"/>
<node CREATED="1370273633005" ID="ID_865144526" MODIFIED="1370273678289" TEXT="Ry:  don&apos;t eliminate a document that&apos;s needed to support resolution of disputes"/>
<node CREATED="1370273216404" ID="ID_1784214155" MODIFIED="1370273240857" TEXT="Graham -- redundant point is worth talking about, may cause confusion"/>
<node CREATED="1370273319736" ID="ID_1160518914" MODIFIED="1370273362549" TEXT="Lars - brings up the coments from Compliance -- supporting the &quot;this is useful&quot; view"/>
<node CREATED="1370273375874" ID="ID_1977566743" MODIFIED="1370273806649" TEXT="Compliance comment: Concerning legitimate transfer requests, it may seem redundant to have the AuthInfo code sent by the Registered Name Holder (RNH), and the mandatory FOA sent by the RNH or the Admin Contact, to the gaining registrar. &#xa;&#xa;However, ICANN&#x2019;s Contractual Compliance Department is of the view that, in cases involving unauthorized transfer requests in which the RNH&#x2019;s email address has been hijacked, or its access credentials to the control panel have been stolen, the gaining registrar&#x2019;s obligation to obtain the FOA from either the RNH or the Admin Contact can help protect the domain names from being hijacked, given the RNH&#x2019;s Whois contact information is different from the Admin Contact&#x2019;s. The Admin Contact can attempt to deny the transfer request or, at the least, is alerted of a pending transfer request and may have the opportunity to take appropriate action against the hijacker. &#xa;&#xa;31 (66%) of the 47 unauthorized transfer complaints received by ICANN in the period from January, 2012 to February, 2013, involved the RNH&#x2019;s hijacked email address or its stolen control panel access credentials. While ICANN does not have visibility on all the instances in which the Admin Contacts were able to actually deny the transfer requests or take action against potential hijackers, as these were never filed as IRTP-related complaints, this percentage suggests that two-thirds of all unauthorized transfer requests can potentially be denied or addressed by the Admin Contacts due to the gaining registrars&#x2019; obligation to obtain the FOA from any of the Transfer Contacts."/>
<node CREATED="1370273486180" ID="ID_165454619" MODIFIED="1370273623615" TEXT="Bladel - maybe merge the processes?  Mikey: there may be issues diving that deep into the actuall processes">
<node CREATED="1370274115160" ID="ID_640209863" MODIFIED="1370274154278" TEXT="Is there any harm that&apos;s being caused?  Potential benefits seem outweigh the harm"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1370272618341" ID="ID_159950482" MODIFIED="1370274054234" TEXT="Tentative  answer - &quot;no, they&apos;re needed credentials for xfer&quot;"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1370274174639" ID="ID_187066664" MODIFIED="1370274181674" TEXT="Any further comments">
<node CREATED="1370274181674" ID="ID_49260530" MODIFIED="1370274222960" TEXT="Ry:  Please underscore the role of Resellers in the issues addressed by this PDP">
<node CREATED="1370274274269" ID="ID_406714515" MODIFIED="1370274304695" TEXT="Bladel:  new draft RAA states that Registrars are completely responsible for the actions of their resellers">
<node CREATED="1370274304697" ID="ID_1754763053" MODIFIED="1370274310862" TEXT="highlight?"/>
<node CREATED="1370274756052" ID="ID_1658529839" MODIFIED="1370274760073" TEXT="reiterate?"/>
<node CREATED="1370274311349" ID="ID_318574417" MODIFIED="1370274316785" TEXT="reference?"/>
<node CREATED="1370274317863" ID="ID_1244887570" MODIFIED="1370274325057" TEXT="discuss?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1370274543133" ID="ID_1465111838" MODIFIED="1370274573602" TEXT="Mountain -- can they clarify what they&apos;re looking for?"/>
<node CREATED="1370274784514" ID="ID_1778754694" MODIFIED="1370274834352" TEXT="Blad: we&apos;re the last in the chain of IRTP -- doesn&apos;t hurt to remind people that these apply to Resellers as well."/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1363019780482" ID="ID_1516539554" MODIFIED="1366643218986" POSITION="right" TEXT="Additional IRTP issues identified during the WG discussion">
<node CREATED="1363019853708" ID="ID_1131312888" MODIFIED="1363019864092" TEXT="This is the last instance of IRTP">
<node CREATED="1363019864320" ID="ID_640792902" MODIFIED="1363019873688" TEXT="Risk of overload"/>
<node CREATED="1363019875106" ID="ID_691430844" MODIFIED="1363019881238" TEXT="But this is the last time"/>
<node CREATED="1363019882418" ID="ID_541092041" MODIFIED="1363019888667" TEXT="Requires balance"/>
<node CREATED="1363019902983" ID="ID_812389258" MODIFIED="1363019911364" TEXT="Caution is the watchword"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1363019632544" ID="ID_187201025" MODIFIED="1363019718528" TEXT="Question:  whether registries should even be in the 1st-level resolution role?  Maybe go to something like UDRP?">
<node CREATED="1363019983253" ID="ID_1551312921" MODIFIED="1363020006337" TEXT="May tie to the &quot;open to registrants&quot; question -- smaller number of providers may be relevant"/>
<node CREATED="1363020015495" ID="ID_1585841231" MODIFIED="1363020044239" TEXT="&quot;Change of registrant&quot; also needs dispute resolution - that may be another topic for this "/>
<node CREATED="1363020119198" ID="ID_48320224" MODIFIED="1363020131472" TEXT="Many of the charter questions deal with TDRP"/>
<node CREATED="1363020131990" ID="ID_26286371" MODIFIED="1363020170701" TEXT="Dramatic increase in the number of registries -- many of whom (eg brands) may not have much dispute resolution"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1364229771903" ID="ID_1831493043" MODIFIED="1364229961667" TEXT="New charter question?:  Given the other changes, especially those arising from IRTP-C, has the nature of the TDRP changed in a fundamental way?">
<node CREATED="1364229911111" ID="ID_496393976" MODIFIED="1364229942393" TEXT="Current language MAY be flexible enough, but it would be worth taking a look to ensure consistency of the policies"/>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1366643220219" ID="ID_1392420722" MODIFIED="1366643225386" POSITION="right" TEXT="Beijing recap">
<node CREATED="1366643225387" ID="ID_328427520" MODIFIED="1366643229939" TEXT="new members"/>
<node CREATED="1366643230542" ID="ID_1604566048" MODIFIED="1366643249247" TEXT="updated Council"/>
<node CREATED="1366643249847" ID="ID_96795551" MODIFIED="1366643260233" TEXT="continued analysis of charter questions"/>
<node CREATED="1366643260636" ID="ID_1140365551" MODIFIED="1366643271742" TEXT="got a presentation by ICANN Compliance"/>
<node CREATED="1366643272269" ID="ID_1671470441" MODIFIED="1366643290014" TEXT="James&apos; monologue about TDRP">
<node CREATED="1366643290015" ID="ID_296349162" MODIFIED="1366643314473" TEXT="message from compliance/registrars">
<node CREATED="1366643314473" ID="ID_1359183681" MODIFIED="1366643321917" TEXT="transfers is a confusing process"/>
<node CREATED="1366643322342" ID="ID_314971806" MODIFIED="1366643333415" TEXT="considerable dissatisfaction from registrants"/>
<node CREATED="1366643333738" ID="ID_846697424" MODIFIED="1366643357341" TEXT="hijacking is a real problem, that requires speedy respons and TDRP isn&apos;t "/>
<node CREATED="1366643357775" ID="ID_1559165813" MODIFIED="1366643385531" TEXT="TEAC and Registrant policy changes may have mitigated this"/>
<node CREATED="1366643386080" ID="ID_1014371340" MODIFIED="1366643439156" TEXT="most of our charter questions revolve around TDRP -- so we could put it under a microscop and make it better, with process to follow -- the normal ICAN process"/>
<node CREATED="1366643439731" ID="ID_1377171592" MODIFIED="1366643480392" TEXT="what if we took a different approach?  most of us are familiar with commercial products.  what if we looked at TDRP as a product?  assess the market for this product?  ">
<node CREATED="1366643480394" ID="ID_236490788" MODIFIED="1366643488593" TEXT="there&apos;s a market"/>
<node CREATED="1366643488803" ID="ID_1090542429" MODIFIED="1366643499572" TEXT="but the target customer isn&apos;t using this product"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1366643507828" ID="ID_53322311" MODIFIED="1366643531344" TEXT="proposal: consider the possibillity that we don&apos;t need TDRP">
<node CREATED="1366643531346" ID="ID_1296606528" MODIFIED="1366643548104" TEXT="other policies have been proposed but haven&apos;t been enacted yet"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1366643552715" ID="ID_370108489" MODIFIED="1366643579927" TEXT="what would we need if we were to explore cancelling a  policy, or putting it into hybernation?"/>
</node>
<node CREATED="1366643638621" ID="ID_1617526312" MODIFIED="1366643643011" TEXT="reaction from WG">
<node CREATED="1366643643011" ID="ID_195367353" MODIFIED="1366644500095" TEXT="Bob M -- "/>
</node>
</node>
</node>
<node CREATED="1363021207279" ID="ID_1759085957" MODIFIED="1363021214875" POSITION="right" TEXT="Questions for next time">
<node CREATED="1363021214877" ID="ID_1845224395" MODIFIED="1363021225110" TEXT="actively recruit attendees in Beijing??"/>
</node>
</node>
</map>
