[CPWG] GNSO-TPR Small Team proposal on transfer disputes

[Steinar Grøtterød]

Hi Justine,

Examples for «tuning» into policy text is alter from “may” to MUST if the step is required:

3. The LRr should provide reason(s) for the transfer reversal, provide supporting information and data, and identify if it is an emergency situation requiring immediate attention.
To
3. The Losing Registrar MUST provide reason(s) for the transfer reversal, provide supporting information and data, and identify if it is an emergency situation requiring immediate attention.

The task to codify the informal process was given to the Small Team to make a guideline since the registrars process this differently. Please note that the volume if transfer disputes handled in this informal phase, is low. The number of cases ending in a TDRP is also very low.

I hope this answers your questions.

Regards,
Steinar Grøtterød

From: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 02:40
To: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar at recito.no>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>, hadia Elminiawi <helminiawi at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] GNSO-TPR Small Team proposal on transfer disputes
Hello Steinar,

Thanks for this. If I may:

1. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "...hence tune the wording in to more “policy text”"?  As in to codify the informal process by way of a policy recommendation?

2. Are there reason(s) which support the non-codification of this informal process through policy?

Kind regards,
Justine

On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 08:22, Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,

The majority of all transfer disputes are settled in a friendly way by the involved registrars. The GNSO-TPR created a Small Team with the task to codify the informal process when there is a dispute of a (inter-registrar) transfer (but a TDRP was not started).

At the GNSO-TPR call on May 2, 2023, the chair asked all to get feedback from their stakeholders on whether the Small Team proposal should be “policy” or not. The deadline for feedback was set to Monday May 8, 2023

I have copied the Small Team proposal to a “At-Large” version<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16eXaNTW8pZXQSqZ7ksj-oMc1VPhYAyawNcfDT2CECoE/edit?usp=sharing> and kindly ask for our view whether this should be “policy” or not.

My recommendation is to implement the proposal into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, hence tune the wording in to more “policy text”.

Please make your comment to https://docs.google.com/document/d/16eXaNTW8pZXQSqZ7ksj-oMc1VPhYAyawNcfDT2CECoE/edit?usp=sharing and indicate if you are in favor of making this a policy or not.

Regards,

Steinar Grøtterød
At-Large Representative
Transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (TPR-PDP)




_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230503/c5bb8ee2/attachment.html>