[CPWG] Minutes from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP meeting on May 30, 2023

[Steinar Grøtterød]

Dear Oliver,

In my understand, the present and proposed TDRP can only be used if the Losing Registrar (LoRr) or Gaining Registrar (GaRr) have not followed the required processes as defined in the transfer policy. In the present transfer policy, as set of notifications must be sent and approved to the registrant of record. Similar correspondence is proposed in the WG drafts to Phase 1a.

In a scenario where either the LoRr or GaRr have NOT followed the defined steps, the transfer dispute should be solved by the TDRP. Note - the mistake(s) can be done without the registrant is altered.

It has been argued that since it is the registrars “mistake(s)” that is to be investigated, the Registrant cannot initiate or use the TDRP.

Hijacking or domain theft must be solved in a different way than a “TDRP”. I am not sure how but hope the final (draft) report of the Phase 2 charter questions will give some clarity on how a registrant can solve a transfer dispute. Per today – to my understanding, going to court is the only alternative (or in some cases ICANN compliance).

I hope this make sense and responds to your question.

Regards,

Steinar Grøtterød

From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Date: Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 11:20
To: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar at recito.no>, CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Cc: hadia Elminiawi <helminiawi at gmail.com>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
Subject: Re: Minutes from the GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP meeting on May 30, 2023
Dear Steinar,

thank you for your report. Please explain the following:
On 31/05/2023 07:56, Steinar Grøtterød wrote:
Unfortunately, the majority of the WG members are in favour of creating another process to secure the registrant possibility to dispute.

This is in the case of a domain hijacking? So the "new registrant" ie. hijacker, would have the possibility to dispute? Please explain as our sentence is ambiguous.
Many thanks,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230531/347d3f39/attachment-0001.html>