Thanks Emily. I think the addition of "material" does not do anything to address the overbreadth of the proposal, and that "abuse" provisions are what the WG intended when suggesting the broadening of language from just "fraud". [image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 11:08 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Farzi,
For context, Mike had raised via email (please see here <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/2022-May/000449.html>) that the IPC was uncomfortable with the phrasing “violation of the Registration Agreement,” as it believes this to be too broad and could be potentially abused. The following alternatives were put forward during the last two calls:
Evidence of fraud or material violation of the Registration Agreement (emphasis added); (note: this textual addition was suggested by the RrSG) OR
Evidence of fraud or violation of registrar’s domain use or anti-abuse policies (emphasis added) (note: this textual addition was suggested by an ICANN org colleague, and seemed to receive the support of the WG)
It may be helpful to review the relevant meeting transcripts for additional context. Please refer to the relevant links here:
17 May 2022: https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2022-05-17+Transfer+Policy+Review...
24 May 2022: https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2022-05-24+Transfer+Policy+Review...
Kind regards,
Julie, Berry, Caitlin, and Emily
*From: *GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 19:11 *To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-TPR] Proposed agenda for meeting #47 on Tuesday 17 May 2022 at 16:00 UTC
Hi
Sorry I have not been able to follow up on this issue. Especially recommendation 19, is IPC recommending a new language and the group agreed on it already? or are we going to discuss this? And can you please specify exactly how it will change the current language that we agreed on (Owen suggested language). That is what NCSG was informed about and I need to follow up with them if we are making changes to that language.
Best regards,
Farzaneh
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 12:45 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Hi all, unfortunately I have been unable to make the last few calls due to litigation matters. I should make it next week and certainly to the F2F in Den Haag.
Meanwhile, Roger very helpfully summarized for me the discussion on the two issues IPC has flagged. We understand there is no movement on Rec 12 and can live with that, with thanks for further explanation from Roger.
As to Rec 19, we understand the WG seems coalesced around alternative language that the IPC will support, again with many thanks for considering our concern:
· Evidence of fraud or *violation of registrar’s domain use or anti-abuse policies* (emphasis added) (note: this textual addition was suggested by an ICANN org colleague, and seemed to receive the support of the WG)
Thank you all,
Mike
[image: Image removed by sender. Logo]
*Mike Rodenbaugh*
*address:*
548 Market Street, Box 55819
San Francisco, CA 94104
*email:*
mike@rodenbaugh.com
*phone:*
+1 (415) 738-8087
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:07 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Apologies I cannot make the call tomorrow as I have to be in court with a client.
We in the IPC also wanted to Flag Reco #12 for further discussion:
- Rec. 12 (line 822 of report) – five calendar days, or 120 hours as stated in the report, is too long to wait for a TAC. While most registrars give this to you instantly or within minutes, we wouldn’t want to wait five days if the matter was urgent and a registrar had that kind of time latitude. We’d strongly prefer a 1-2 calendar day maximum.
Re Rec #19, we continue to believe that since the stated intention is to have guardrails, that we should recommend that definitional language and not leave it up to later implementation and/or unfettered registrar discretion.
I can make the call next week to further discuss., or here on the list.
Thanks,
Mike
[image: Image removed by sender. Logo]
*Mike Rodenbaugh*
*address:*
548 Market Street, Box 55819
San Francisco, CA 94104
*email:*
mike@rodenbaugh.com
*phone:*
+1 (415) 738-8087
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 2:10 PM Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 16:00 UTC.
Kind regards,
Emily, Julie, Berry, and Caitlin
*Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #47*
*Proposed Agenda*
*17 May 2022*
1. Roll Call & SOI updates 2. Welcome and Chair Updates 3. Return to items in the preliminary recommendations flagged for further discussion during last week’s call (see here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1clAqB1wBeOf9ZC5RMMxKrrUTs3N2WyaVYTIyVy_ODs4/edit__;!!PtGJab4!9wu0H42W3_Sb5igHR0R3To6sU5OszNBkQtMDkbuGHN8sof-0JGgmKCOdoeJH7sSosegNNDV6gPm0b9GtD3kDi4z-24fSmwTk6Q$>)
1. Recommendation 7 2. Recommendation 9.2 3. Recommendation 13.1 4. Recommendation 13.2
1. Discussion of Recommendation 19 email thread (please see here <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/2022-May/000449.html>) 2. Begin review of items flagged in Proposed Revisions from Working Group members [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1s9xumJ1XBPdTb7kQmc5sAC2AkszvfAF0freMvnx6G18/edit__;!!PtGJab4!9wu0H42W3_Sb5igHR0R3To6sU5OszNBkQtMDkbuGHN8sof-0JGgmKCOdoeJH7sSosegNNDV6gPm0b9GtD3kDi4z-24fyJMbErg$> document (if any) 3. AOB
1. Next call: Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 16:00 UTC
_______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
_______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr