July 2010 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: [liaison6c] Your Input Requested before 25 July 2010: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Initial Report
by KnobenW＠telekom.de July 7, 2010

July 7, 2010

FYI Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. Juli 2010 10:25 An: liaison6c Betreff: [liaison6c] Your Input Requested before 25 July 2010: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Initial Report Please distribute to all your members and please note that the final date for comments is 25 July 2010. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05jul10-en.htm Your Input Requested: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Initial Report Opening of Public Comment Forum 5 July 2010 The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) Working published its Initial Report on 29 May 2010. Today a public comment forum opens for a twenty-day period as prescribed by the ICANN by-laws. The IRTP Part B WG is looking for your input on the Initial Report and in particular on the preliminary conclusions and recommendations put forward in the report, including a proposed Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy. All those interested are encouraged to provide their input so that the WG can take these into account when finalizing its report following the closing of the public comment forum. Background The IRTP Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) is the second in a series of five PDPs that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The Working Group was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and “lock status”. The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to irtp-b-initial-report(a)icann.org until 25 July 2010. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#irtp-b-… An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-initial-report/ Further information IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report – http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-initial-report-29may10-en.pdf [PDF, 765 KB] Translations of the Executive Summary: * [PDF, 159 KB] العربية * 中文 [PDF, 217 KB] * Français [PDF, 160 KB] * Русский [PDF, 245 KB] * Español [PDF, 170 KB] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) – http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/ Staff responsible: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [liaison6c] FW: AoC Reviews - Call for Applicants
by KnobenW＠telekom.de July 6, 2010

July 6, 2010

FYI Don't hesitate to apply! Regards Wolf-Ulrich Forwarded From: Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org] Sent: mardi 6 juillet 2010 17:12 To: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AoC Reviews - Call for Applicants Importance: High Dear Chuck, We would like to inform you that to date, the overall number of received applications for the Affirmation Reviews 2 and 4 tallies up to 5: * Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review team à 2 applications; * WHOIS Policy Review à 3 applications. Please note that so far, 2 candidates have expressed their wish to represent the GNSO during the process http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ : * Eric Brunner-Williams - SS&R (preference) + WHOIS * James Bladel - WHOIS As you know, the deadline for submitting candidatures will expire on July 15th at 23:59 UTC - <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-2-and-4-en.…> http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-2-and-4-en.… Given the poor number of applications received, we would be really grateful if you could please consider issuing a reminder of this forthcoming deadline to your community. Many thanks in advance for your help, Best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews alice.jansen(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

1 0

MALICIOUS CONDUCT DOCS.
by Anthony Harris July 5, 2010

July 5, 2010

Guys, As per our discussion on the call, the following is the link to the ICANN documents on Malicious Conduct: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22feb10-en.htm Regards Tony

1 0

New gTLD overarching issue - malicious conduct
by Tonyarholmes＠btinternet.com July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

All members of the ISPCP It has been proposed within the CSG Executive that the CSG leadership send a joint letter from the three constituencies expressing major concern over the overarching issue of malicious conduct related to the introduction of gTLDS. As discussed during the Brussels meeting one of the problems is that the high security zone program is purely voluntary. The IPC in particular has said there still needs to be some way to raise an objection that a particular application that does not meet the "voluntary" program poses real problems, the example that's been used is .kids. The other view that appears to be held by ICANN is that malicious conduct as an overarching issues is now done. It's worth stating that the HSTLD advisory group is still working hard (although down to a very small group of people) on some fundamental principles that still have to work out (like who these rules would apply to (registry, registrar, registrant). But that does not take away the concerns raised in some quarters that this is an optional program, is not tied to the new GTLD rollout, and even whether it will actually make a TLD more secure. The issue I would like your feedback on is whether it's appropriate for the ISPCP executive to add their support to this letter. A number of times during the Brussels meeting I heard ISPs making the point that further delays to the gTLD program would not be supported, so there is a balance to strike. Certainly if its argued that the issues around malicious conduct are still unresolved, then effectively we are accepting the need for additional delay. Please provide feedback and comments on whether the ISPCP should offer support for the view that the malicious conduct issue is not resolved to a satisfactory level and more work is required before ICANN can push ahead with the gTLD program. If as a result of your response we require a conference call to discuss this further, that will be arranged. However this is urgent and requires a quick answer. Many thanks Tony

4 3