ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Staff feedback on IPC comments re. Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Staff feedback on IPC comments re. Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:28:00 -0800
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • In-reply-to: <CB31C249.1E172%marika.konings@icann.org>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AczVuxvqDf49GaktRyCKLgcfmgf2Yg==
  • Thread-topic: Staff feedback on IPC comments re. Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121

Dear All,
ICANN Staff has reviewed the comments from the IPC (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html and 
attached) in relation to the staff proposals on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 
and #9,part 2 and we would like to share our views with the GNSO Council so 
these can be considered as part of the deliberations on this topic at the 
upcoming GNSO Council meeting.
Recommendation #8
In relation to the staff proposal for IRTP Part B Recommendation #8, the IPC 
notes that "IPC feels that if the proposed links do become stripped out of the 
WHOIS record, it might create enforcement issues for ICANN and increased 
user-confusion. Nonetheless, IPC believes that several other options might 
result in reduced consumer confusion and better enforcement. IPC details these 
below.
Option 1: Perhaps the link at the end of the WHOIS output could be embedded in 
the status code itself in the WHOIS data,rather than at the end of all the 
data. Alternatively, the link could appear adjacent to the status code.
Option 2:  The proposed link could direct the user directly to the operative 
EPP code and accompanying explanation for that code. This would, in IPC’s view, 
obviate the need for the user to sort through the list of 17 status codes to 
locate the appropriate code in a potentially time-consuming endeavor. IPC also 
notes that the Recommendationmakes no mention of multi-lingual support for 
WHOIS output. Accordingly, IPS suggests that ICANN considering incorporating 
this feature into the final recommendation.
Option 3:  Alternatively, and preferably, dispense with links and provide the 
explanation in a footnote to each WHOIS record."
In relation to option 1, hyperlinks could also be stripped out, so this option 
does not address the IPC’s concern that ‘proposed links do become stripped out 
of the Whois record’. However, the concern of links being stripped out is 
addressed by requiring registrars to ‘not remove Internic.net hyperlinks (or 
particularly the Internic.net status hyperlink) from their WHOIS output’.
In relation to option 2, this approach could be beneficial, as it would direct 
the user directly to the applicable explanation for that code. Registrars could 
be required to display a link to information on each status code directly next 
to the status in the output, for example: "Status: ClientLock 
http:www.internic.net/status.html/clientlock". The Registrar Stakeholder Group 
should also review and respond to this IPC proposal. With regard to 
multi-lingual support, ICANN will post translations of the status information. 
The web-page can make use of localization information from the browser the user 
is using to display the web-page in the related language.
In relation to option 3, this option was also discussed by the IRTP Part B WG 
in considering earlier drafts of the proposal, but was discarded as this would 
not work for Whois queries via port-43 and would not allow for flexibility and 
easy access to the information that a separate web-page offers.
Recommendation #9, part 2
In relation to the proposal for IRTP Part B Recommendation #9, part 2, the IPC 
notes that "IPC does have concerns, however, with the ability of the registrar 
to impose a lock that prevents adomain name transfer if the terms and 
conditions for such a transfer are included in the registration agreement.  IPC 
believes that this blanket allowance might be harmful to registrants, many of 
which are trademark owners or otherwise holders of intellectual property, who 
will agree to the terms and conditions in a “click-through” agreement without 
actually reading it. Accordingly, IPC opposes this particular provision of 
Recommendation #9, Part 2". This proposal is specifically designed to address 
transfer issues that may arise from the scenario described by the IPC  To this 
end, the proposed provision includes a requirement to remove the lock within 5 
days, so even if the registrant agreed to the lock by 'clicking through' the 
registration agreement 'without actually reading it', the registrar must 
un-lock the domain name within 5 days upon registrant’s request. In other 
words, registrars may not “contract out” of their obligations under the IRTP.
We would be happy to answer any further questions you might have.
With best regards,
Marika
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:36:48 -0800
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] FW: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 
part 2

Dear All,

Please find attached the comments from the IPC on the staff proposals in 
relation to IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2. As these comments were 
received after the closing of the public comment forum and the submission of 
the proposals to the Council, these are provided to you directly for your 
consideration. ICANN Staff is planning to provide its feedback on the IPC 
comments separately so that you have the opportunity to review our opinion on 
these comments also as part of your deliberations.

With best regards,

Marika

From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" 
<bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:02:12 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Murray, Emily" <emurray@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:emurray@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "Barry, 
Korey" <Kbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Kbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2

Dear Marika,
Thank you very much for your response. Please find attached the IPC’s comments 
on the above-mentioned issues, which have now been approved by the IPC.  We 
would greatly appreciate it if the comments could be considered and if the 
proposals could be revised, if warranted.

We sincerely appreciate your flexibility and consideration during the busy 
year-end and holiday period.

Best regards,
Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP


From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: January 4, 2012 3:43:52 AM EST
To: "Winterfeldt, Brian" 
<bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2
Dear Brian,

As the proposals have already been submitted to the GNSO Council and the public 
comment forum has been closed, it might make more sense to raise the IPC's 
comments as part of the Council's deliberations on the proposals, unless the 
Council prefers that Staff considers the IPC comments first and revises the 
proposals, if necessary, based on the comments.

Best regards,

Marika

From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" 
<bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:56:37 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2

Dear Marika,

I hope you enjoyed the holiday break!  Unfortunately due to everyone's hectic 
schedule surrounding the holidays, we were a bit delayed in composing comments 
on both of these recommendations on behalf of the IPC.  Accordingly, we are 
planning to submit comments on behalf of the IPC later this week on these 
issues.  Please let us know if that is okay, or if we are too late to do so.

Thank you and looking forward to working together in 2012!

Best,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 6:45 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Staff Proposals - IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and #9 part 2

Dear All,

First of all, best wishes for 2012!

As you may recall, the GNSO Council resolved in June of last year in relation 
to two of the IRTP Part B recommendations (recommendation #8 concerning the 
standardization and clarification of Whois status messages regarding Registrar 
Lock status and recommendation #9 part 2 concerning a new provision to lock and 
unlock domain names) to request ICANN staff to provide proposals. In 
consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, ICANN Staff prepared these 
proposals which were subsequently put out for public comment (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22nov11-en.htm). As no 
comments were received as part of the public comment forum, these proposals are 
now submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration (see attached).

If you have any questions, please let me know.

With best regards,

Marika

Attachment: IPC Comments on IRTP Part B Staff Proposals No 8 No 9 Part 2.doc
Description: IPC Comments on IRTP Part B Staff Proposals No 8 No 9 Part 2.doc



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>