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

[Justine Chew]

Thanks.

Kind regards,
Justine



On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 16:10, Steinar Grøtterød <steinar at recito.no> wrote:

> Hi Justine,
>
>
>
> In my view, the Small Team proposal can be seen as a “TDRP Light” process
> that makes it possible for the registrant to have a transfer investigated
> without entering the full process as set in TDRP with panelists and costs.
>
>
>
> Making it a policy will require the registrars to investigate and decide
> on the “transfer light dispute”.
>
>
>
> I hope this make sense.
>
>
>
> /Steinar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 09:16
> *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
>
> Hi Steinar,
>
> I guess I misunderstood your original email. I now see that the task is to
> "codify the informal process" but that the question really is whether this
> "codification" should be made mandatory (i.e. policy) or remain as
> voluntary (i.e. guidelines). And your recommendation is for it be made
> mandatory.
>
> Reverting to my 2nd question (with modification), if as you say, the
> volume of transfer disputes handled is low and the number of cases ending
> in TDRP are very low, then what factors could/should we consider in
> deciding whether to support your recommendation?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Justine
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 15:02, Steinar Grøtterød <steinar at recito.no> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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
> 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/20230503/0efd0b59/attachment.html>