Re: [ga] Your Input Requested before 25 July 2010: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Initial Report

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Glenn I followed all the links, with the gentlemen Frisco Texas on the other 
end 
of the line, and got zippo, nada, zilch, bubkiss and absolutely nowhere. No 
wonder only Wendy and George have posted there -- it is impossible to link up.

We found George's post but could not add one on the forum:

Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Subsection 3.7.7.3 comments  By: George 
Kirikos Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Date: July 6, 2010  With 
regards to the draft advisory, we disagree with the sentence:  "However, by way 
of guidance, ICANN notes that any delay over five business  days  in the 
Registered Name Holder identifying the licensee would not be "prompt" as  that 
term is used in the RAA."  The appropriate time period should be left to the 
discretion and judgement of  the courts. The registered name holder (who might 
be an ordinary registrant,  i.e. not a registrar or registrar-controlled proxy 
service) might not have  received proper notice (an email that ends up in a 
junk 
folder is insufficient  notice!), so it's unclear at what time the clock should 
start. If proper notice  is received (using the "actual notice" standard of a 
legal process server, for  example), 3 weeks measured from the time of actual 
notice would be a better  time  period, as this would permit the registered 
name 
holder ample time to consult  with their attorneys, etc. Five days is not 
sufficient time for most attorneys  who have multiple clients, and who take 
vacations of their own.  We believe the guidance should go further, though, to 
place liability strictly  upon the registrar in the event that the registrant 
(or licensee for that  matter) is a fake identity, or doesn't exist. This would 
be a backdoor way of  introducing Verified WHOIS on a best practices basis, as 
registrars would  otherwise face explicit liability if they are the registrar 
for  anonymous/throwaway domains that are used for abusive purposes.  
Sincerely,  
George Kirikos President Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. 
http://www.leap.com/




________________________________
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 1:26:50 AM
Subject: [ga] Your Input Requested before 25 July 2010: Inter-Registrar 
Transfer 
Policy Part B Initial Report



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@xxxxxxxxx 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-initial-report


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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org