IRTP Part D Final Report 2nd Draft
Dear all, Please find attached the second draft of the IRTP Part D PDP Final Report. The WG¹s observations and recommendations can be found in Section 4. Please note, that the Executive Summary will be updated once all recommendations are finalised. Best, Lars
Hi Lars (and everyone) Sorry I”ll be an apology for the next meeting. The point I was making at the last meeting was with the first sentence. We have considered allowing registrants into the dispute process as provided for in IRTP-C - and then rejected it. What was decided instead what that, with a far clearer explanation of processes on the ICANN website, registrants should be able to better understand the process, including what the rules provide. And when their registrar should take action (under the RAA) but doesn’t, the registrant can to to ICANN compliance and ask that the registrar be required to take action. The first sentence in the report seems to imply more. Thanks Holly On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:57 pm, Lars Hoffmann <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
<IRTP-DFinalReport_V2.doc>
Hi Holly, Thank you for your note. I assume you are referring to the first sentence in the Executive Summary: "The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) provides the policy framework for domain name transfers between registrars, and, through the recommendations of IRTP Part C, includes also provisions for transfers between registrants.² This descriptive opening sentence is supposed to refer to the transfer policy - both for inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers. Our WG was considering to introduce a transfer dispute policy for registrants - which was eventually abandoned. Would it be ok for you if the second sentence was amended an extended to read: "IRTP also provides standardised requirements for inter-registar transfer disputes - through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. Disputes that involve inter-registrant transfers are not covered by this policy but this PDP WG has addressed this issue and recommendations related to inter-regstrant transfer disputes can be found in Section 4.2.3.² Looking forward to hear what you and others think. Best wishes, Lars PS: Your apology is of course noted - and thank you for the heads up! On 16/08/2014 08:36, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Lars (and everyone)
Sorry I²ll be an apology for the next meeting. The point I was making at the last meeting was with the first sentence. We have considered allowing registrants into the dispute process as provided for in IRTP-C - and then rejected it. What was decided instead what that, with a far clearer explanation of processes on the ICANN website, registrants should be able to better understand the process, including what the rules provide. And when their registrar should take action (under the RAA) but doesn¹t, the registrant can to to ICANN compliance and ask that the registrar be required to take action. The first sentence in the report seems to imply more.
Thanks
Holly
On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:57 pm, Lars Hoffmann <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
<IRTP-DFinalReport_V2.doc>
Thanks Lars And yes, I was referring to the descriptive opening sentence, and yes, I like your rewording. HOlly On 17 Aug 2014, at 12:31 am, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Holly,
Thank you for your note. I assume you are referring to the first sentence in the Executive Summary:
"The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) provides the policy framework for domain name transfers between registrars, and, through the recommendations of IRTP Part C, includes also provisions for transfers between registrants.²
This descriptive opening sentence is supposed to refer to the transfer policy - both for inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers. Our WG was considering to introduce a transfer dispute policy for registrants - which was eventually abandoned.
Would it be ok for you if the second sentence was amended an extended to read:
"IRTP also provides standardised requirements for inter-registar transfer disputes - through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. Disputes that involve inter-registrant transfers are not covered by this policy but this PDP WG has addressed this issue and recommendations related to inter-regstrant transfer disputes can be found in Section 4.2.3.²
Looking forward to hear what you and others think.
Best wishes, Lars
PS: Your apology is of course noted - and thank you for the heads up!
On 16/08/2014 08:36, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Hi Lars (and everyone)
Sorry I²ll be an apology for the next meeting. The point I was making at the last meeting was with the first sentence. We have considered allowing registrants into the dispute process as provided for in IRTP-C - and then rejected it. What was decided instead what that, with a far clearer explanation of processes on the ICANN website, registrants should be able to better understand the process, including what the rules provide. And when their registrar should take action (under the RAA) but doesn¹t, the registrant can to to ICANN compliance and ask that the registrar be required to take action. The first sentence in the report seems to imply more.
Thanks
Holly
On 14 Aug 2014, at 4:57 pm, Lars Hoffmann <Lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
<IRTP-DFinalReport_V2.doc>
<default.xml><default[1].xml>
participants (2)
-
Holly Raiche -
Lars Hoffmann