[CPWG] DRAFT: Text to be distributed to TPR-PDP WG regarding the 60-days lock questions
gopal at annauniv.edu
gopal at annauniv.edu
Sat Nov 20 10:21:52 UTC 2021
Thank you for posting the draft.
It has been a good point to discuss.
The lock-in of 60 days is mooted to factor many possibilities including
the
financial transaction. Specific to financial transaction, as on date the
Reserve Bank of India specifies:
a) Zero Liability of a Customer: Systemic Fault reported within three
working days
b) Limited Liability of a Customer: Within 4 to 7 working days based on
the
concerned Bank's policy
Maximum Time for resolution : 90 days from the date of receipt of the
complaint
Well, I prefer 60 days on this leaving the remaining 30 days to the
bank.
As the policy document reads:
The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised
electronic banking transactions shall lie on the bank.
The systems and procedures in banks must be designed to make customers
feel safe about carrying out electronic banking transactions.
Hope this helps.
Not entirely an aside:
The way we used to conclude on the receipt of / non-receipt of a packet
sent on the heterogenous network based on
an estimated round trip time between the sender and the receiver is a
good analogy.
Sincerely,
Gopal T V
0 9840121302
https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545
https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. T V Gopal
Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
College of Engineering
Anna University
Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
(Res) 24454753
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 2021-11-20 14:07, Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Based on the poll held at the CPWG call on Nov. 17, 2021, I have
> drafted a text to inform the TPR-PDP WG. The next TPR-PDP meeting is
> scheduled to Nov 23, 2021, hence hope to have your feedback asap.
>
> The document can be commented using
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkkWGmxg6wWgAkU4qSX_DvCVbda9kkh466b-7O6j9sE/edit?usp=sharing
> [1]
>
> THE PROPOSED TEXT:
>
> The Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) is the At-Large forum for
> discussing policy related issues and giving advice to the ICANN
> community.
>
> At-Large is represented in the GNSO transfer Policy Review Policy
> Development Process (TPR-PDP) with 2 members, 2 alternates and 4
> observers.
>
> The At-Large CPWG members continuously inform the CPWG members about
> the progress in the TPR-PDP working group and seek feedback and advice
> in essential questions given by the work in the TPR-PDP.
>
> In order to get the CPWG input to questions connected to preventing
> transfers to be initiated and executed after an initial registration
> of a generic domain name, and after a successful transfer between
> accredited registrar of a generic domain name, a “poll” was held
> during the CPWG meeting on November 17 2021.
>
> The “poll” was conducted based on the discussion held at the CPWG
> meeting on November 10 2021 and the email communication on the CPWG
> mailing list.
>
> While not mandated in ICANN policy, some Registry Operators have
> provisions in their Registry Agreement that require a 60-day
> inter-registrar transfer lock after the initial registration of a
> domain name AND/OR after a successful inter-registrar transfer. Note:
> This should not be confused with Change of Registrant requirements
> where a “material change” of name or email address will also lock
> the domain against inter-registrar transfers for 60 days following the
> Change of Registrant, if the registrant does not opt-out of this lock.
> Some TPR-PDP working group members have noted that this practice of
> post-domain creation locks or post inter-registrar transfer locks are
> not consistent across the industry, which may be confusing for
> registrants. Some TPR working group members believe that the working
> group should recommend that the Transfer Policy include requirements
> for the 60-day lock after initial registration, although the working
> group is still discussing the rationale for doing so.
>
> When questioned, a significant number of the CPWG members were in
> favour of not defining an ICANN policy requiring a 60-days lock after
> an initial registration of a domain name.
>
> CPWG members with a long “ICANN history” informed the group about
> the rationale for having a 60-days lock after initial registration to
> be credit card check and chargeback. The 60-days lock was introduced
> in 1998/1999. The majority of the CPWG members argued that credit card
> checks and chargeback is no longer a huge problem.
>
> The result of the poll questioning whether an ICANN required policy
> for a 60-days lock after a successful inter-registrar transfer,
> indicated a majority was in favour of NOT defining an ICANN policy of
> a 60-days lock after a successful transfer. However, the number for
> keeping a lock after a successful transfer was higher than for having
> a lock after an initial registration of a domain name. CPWG members
> signaled that locking a domain name after a successful transfer
> reduces the possibility for “registrar hopping '' i.e. changing
> registrars to prevent paying and (often) continuing with suspicious
> activity as security threats.
>
> Poll questions connecting to whether there should be an option for
> registrars and registrants to “opt-out” of locking a domain name
> for transfer either after the initial registration or a successful
> inter-registrar transfer, indicated that this should NOT be an option.
>
>
> Finally, the CPWG members were asked to get their view on whether the
> “60-days” was the preferred number for a transfer lock after a
> successful inter-registrar transfer. The poll’s alternatives were
> “yes” (keep the 60-days), “lower than 60 days”, “higher than
> 60-days” and “Abstain/not sure”. A majority of the CPWG members
> were in favor of a lower number of days locking a transfer after a
> successful inter-registrar transfer.
>
> It must be emphasized that the outcome of the “poll” is NOT the
> final input to these questions. The poll result MUST be seen as a
> guidance to At-Large TPR-PDP members.
>
> ********
>
> POLL QUESTIONS AND RESULTS. THESE WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED
>
> Based on the discussions, we would like to hear the CPWG opinion by
> asking the following:
>
> 1. Are we in favor of ICANN policy requiring a 60-day lock after the
> initial registration of a domain name?
>
> · Yes (18%)
>
> · No (71%)
>
> · Abstain/Not sure (11%)
>
> 2. Are we in favor of ICANN policy requiring a 60-day lock after a
> successful transfer of a domain name?
>
> · Yes (31%)
>
> · No (59%)
>
> · Abstain/Not sure (10%)
>
> 3. Could the above be optional for the registrar to implement? In
> other words, should the registrar have the option to opt-out of these
> locks?
>
> · Yes (23%)
>
> · No (57%)
>
> · Abstain/Not sure (20%)
>
> 4. Should the Registrant have the option to opt-out?
>
> · Yes (30%)
>
> · No (60%)
>
> · Abstain/Not sure (10%)
>
> 5. Is "60 days" the preferred number of days for a lock after a
> successful transfer?
>
> · Yes (20%)
>
> · Should be lower than 60 days (57%)
>
> · Should be more than 60 days (7%)
>
> · Abstain/Not sure (17%)
>
> Regards,
>
> Steinar Grøtterød
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bkkWGmxg6wWgAkU4qSX_DvCVbda9kkh466b-7O6j9sE/edit?usp=sharing
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman
> link above to change your membership status or configuration,
> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
More information about the CPWG
mailing list