From h.raiche at internode.on.net Mon Feb 3 05:54:12 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:54:12 +1100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> References: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <1C3D3AFB-5CE6-470C-A687-0357BF6DAB96@internode.on.net> First, it may be a bit 'bloated' but I think this is the direction we were all headed. On the discussion of the Ombudsman's role, the value of that office is in redirecting complainants to the right place. So, although the office would not have jurisdiction to deal with the issue, at least the complainant could be advised of the procedures. There are still two issues to be worked through. the first is something in plain English and in an obvious place on the website that explains the process we are talking about and gives advice as to what ICANN can and cannot do. The other is to be very clear about what ICANN's role is - and isn't (and maybe this comes first). At the moment, if ICANN rules and policy have not been broken, the registrant cannot use ICANN processes. Do we want to go further than that? Finally, sorry but I'm an apology for tomorrow's call (Monday evening for the rest of you). I have a very long day ahead so a 0200 call will make my day just a bit too long. Will listen to the transcript Holly On 28/01/2014, at 3:01 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: > Hi folks, > > this is still a bit bloated, but it captures what James and I had discussed in the previous week: > > "When receiving a notice of a transfer complaint by the previous registrant within X months after the transfer from the losing registrar, the gaining registrar shall place the domain name under registrar lock. The registrar lock shall be removed after 30 calendar days unless the gaining registrar receives notice of the pendancy of legal proceedings between the original registrant and the current registrant, in which case the lock shall remain in place until the case is decided or dismissed. If both the gaining and losing registrar (or, in cases involving multiple transfers, the current registrar and the registrar filing the dispute) agree, then the transfer(s) may be reversed before applying the lock. Any fees charged for reversed transfers under this policy shall be refunded by the respective registry. No ICANN fees shall apply." > > > -- > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. > > Mit freundlichen Gr??en, > > Volker A. Greimann > - Rechtsabteilung - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net > www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net > www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Mon Feb 3 13:56:25 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 07:56:25 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: <1C3D3AFB-5CE6-470C-A687-0357BF6DAB96@internode.on.net> References: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> <1C3D3AFB-5CE6-470C-A687-0357BF6DAB96@internode.on.net> Message-ID: <7411FC36-A494-4A58-908D-A994648104D4@haven2.com> hi all, sorry this is so late ? the week kinda ran away from me. i bashed through the ?recommendations? portion of the report and gave it a bit of a scrub. we can use this as the basis of the call today if you want. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V1 MO.doc Type: application/msword Size: 561664 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Feb 3 15:35:41 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:35:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: <7411FC36-A494-4A58-908D-A994648104D4@haven2.com> Message-ID: Mikey & Team: Excellent stuff, and I'm happy to lead the discussion of initial recommendations based on Mikey's report. However, I thought there were other (or at least one) other draft floating out on the list? We should make sure any of those edits are captured here also. Talk with you in a few minutes... J. From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 at 7:56 To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language hi all, sorry this is so late - the week kinda ran away from me. i bashed through the "recommendations" portion of the report and gave it a bit of a scrub. we can use this as the basis of the call today if you want. mikey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Feb 3 17:49:37 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:49:37 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 03 February 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 10 February 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 03 February 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140203-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Avri Doria - NCSG Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP Barbara Knight - RySG Rob Golding - RrSG Kristina Dorrain - NAF Volker Greimann - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Angie Graves - BC Chris Chaplow - CBUC Bartlett Morgan - NCUC Kevin Erdman - IPC Apologies: Paul Diaz - RySG ICANN staff: Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 03 February 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group meeting, Monday 03 February 2014 Volker Greimann:Hi Lars, I think you just missed the operator Lars Hoffmann:how so? Volker Greimann:he was asking for the passcode, but no one responded Volker Greimann:so he hung up the line again Nathalie Peregrine:The AC room sometimes dials to the provder automatically without us having prompted it to,, hence why no one replied. I have now activated the audio, so we are all set Volker Greimann:ah, that confused me Nathalie Peregrine:Rob Golding has also joined Mike O'Connor:that's what you get when both teams come from states where marijuana is legal Nathalie Peregrine:Kristine Dorrain has joined the call Kristine Dorrain:Apologies for being tardy Nathalie Peregrine:Berry Cobb has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Chris Chaplow and Bartlett Morgan have joined the call Bartlett Morgan:Hi all. apologies for being late; Another meeting ran over Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):justification - registrars are oblliged to contact the registrant at least once per year for WDRP, so an annual contact is not unexcpected Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):wheras people largely register for 2+ years so they dont expect bills annually :) Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):i'm waiting to get through on the phone Graeme Bunton:checking our avg renewal period now.. Volker Greimann:Hi Rob, that is interesting, but only applies to the UK, I think as .co.uk worked similarly. We usually see annual registration, with just a small percentage being multi-year. Graeme Bunton:Our avg is ~1.1 years per renewal transactions Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):@volker - then they'd be expecting a bill as well, so 2 thing sto 'trigger' them to rethink about their domains :) Graeme Bunton:higher for cc's Nathalie Peregrine:Kevin Erdman has joined the AC room] Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):our average is 2.7yrs for gtlds and 2.03 for cctlds (skewed as .co.uk used to only be 2 years which as UK based means most of ours are 2 yrs) Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):most of our 1 yr gtlds reg's are those that came free with another srevice, as registrants seem to think in 2 year chunks :) Graeme Bunton:that is interestingly different Bladel:I'm back...sorry Volker Greimann:indeed Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):10.8% of our paid gtld registrations are 1 year, so 89% are 2+ (with 2 and 5 being the most common) Graeme Bunton:wow. Volker Greimann:we need to get into this market ;-) Graeme Bunton:are you looking at reg, or renewals or both? Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):i limited the query to registrations Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):it's hell on the cashflow though with it being 2 years between invoices Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):it needs to be on the internic site too Volker Greimann:Isn't ICANN fading that one out? Volker Greimann:2099: ICANN must put it on their Facebook page Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):i dont think they're phasing internic out as thet just announced chnages to it reagrding new whoi and common layout stuff Berry Cobb:The IETF runs Internic Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):it's where icann tell people to go to lookup details about their domain Bladel:iana.org Berry Cobb:All Compliance needs are run off icann.org Berry Cobb:We can ask Internic to post a message if need be. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):operated or promoted by icann maybe ? Chris Chaplow:daylight Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):did we get a decision on how 'public' tdrp results/reporting should be ? Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):I recall .ASIA providing some data about theirs Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):having access to all those registry reports on the icann site would be good for the transparancy Mike O'Connor:we're saying "public" in the draft. there's a way for them to redact, otherwise public Mike O'Connor:agree Rob, links to these would be a good thing in the recommendation Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):thanks jame & mikey Bartlett Morgan:thanks bye -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Feb 3 20:42:37 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:42:37 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] PLEASE RSVP FOR DIAL IN DETAILS: Continuation of GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Sessions Message-ID: http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28jan14-en.htm Continuation of GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Sessions Following a successful GNSO WG Newcomer Open House session pilot session in December of last year, we would like to continue with these sessions to allow for new GNSO WG participants to come together and ask any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and would like to offer this opportunity to come together, talk and answer any questions you may have. To allow for maximum participation in these calls, the proposed schedule is as follows: Thursday 6 February at 12.00 UTC Thursday 6 March at 20.00 UTC Thursday 3 April at 12.00 UTC Thursday 1 May at 20.00 UTC Thursday 5 June at 12.00 UTC Thursday 3 July at 20.00 UTC Thursday 7 August at 12.00 UTC Thursday 4 September at 20.00 UTC Thursday 2 October at 12.00 UTC Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html. If you are interested to join the next meeting on 6 February or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know (gnso-secs at icann.org) and they will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdorrain at adrforum.com Wed Feb 5 20:23:04 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:23:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string Message-ID: Hey everyone: See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar to file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. I've redacted personally identifiable information and we may wish to use this example as evidence. We see this not infrequently. I copied the string so read from the bottom up. Kristine Kristine F. Dorrain, Esq. Director of Internet and IP Services National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) P.O. Box 50191 Minneapolis, MN 55405 Phone 952.516.6456 Fax 866.342.0657 Email kdorrain at adrforum.com domains.adrforum.com This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and attachments -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TDRP emails.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 195631 bytes Desc: TDRP emails.pdf URL: From kdorrain at adrforum.com Wed Feb 5 20:54:19 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:54:19 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: Example email string In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And to be clear, I know you all told me registrants can complain to ICANN, but this says ICANN told him there is nothing they can do. So we need to be very sure that our recommendations do contain commentary as to safeguards for Registrants to gain recourse against their own Registrars. I understand we've decided that what those safeguards are is outside the scope, but we need to be sure ICANN understands that there is a problem. Thanks, Kristine From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dorrain, Kristine Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:23 PM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string Hey everyone: See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar to file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. I've redacted personally identifiable information and we may wish to use this example as evidence. We see this not infrequently. I copied the string so read from the bottom up. Kristine Kristine F. Dorrain, Esq. Director of Internet and IP Services National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) P.O. Box 50191 Minneapolis, MN 55405 Phone 952.516.6456 Fax 866.342.0657 Email kdorrain at adrforum.com domains.adrforum.com This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and attachments -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob.golding at astutium.com Wed Feb 5 21:49:21 2014 From: rob.golding at astutium.com (rob.golding at astutium.com) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:49:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> > See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar to > file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. Whilst I sympathise with the Registrant who has 'lost' control of the domains, the transfers were 'valid' in that they went through the normal transfer processes, were authorised by the contacts on the domain, and they were started by correctly logging into the losing registrar. If the details are exactly as described in the PDF I'd suggest they * first file a report with the police * go see their legal representative * contact the registries concerned * formally write to ICANN (as nothing in there indicated they had actually raised this with icann) Rob From vgreimann at key-systems.net Thu Feb 6 10:42:49 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:42:49 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> Message-ID: <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> Hi Rob, I tend to agree here. A 'valid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was followed in performing the transfer. An 'invalid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was not followed, or not completely followed. A transfer against the will of the registrant may still have been a valid transfer, if process was adhered to. Do we need an additional term for such cases? Volker > >> See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar to >> file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. > > Whilst I sympathise with the Registrant who has 'lost' control of the > domains, the transfers were 'valid' in that they went through the > normal transfer processes, were authorised by the contacts on the > domain, and they were started by correctly logging into the losing > registrar. > > If the details are exactly as described in the PDF I'd suggest they > * first file a report with the police > * go see their legal representative > * contact the registries concerned > * formally write to ICANN (as nothing in there indicated they had > actually raised this with icann) > > Rob > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. From krerdman at live.com Thu Feb 6 15:04:07 2014 From: krerdman at live.com (Kevin Erdman) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:04:07 -0500 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> Message-ID: Hi Rob & Volker, I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained credentials to effect a transfer is a valid transfer. In the banking world, if I get Rob's banking credentials and transfer $10K to my account in North Korea, I complied with the procedures for a "valid transfer" but the transfer is reversible and has consequences. In the domain world, most courts have no power to get a domain transferred to North Korea, but ICANN does. Thus, I think that there should be some allowance to hijack victims under ICANN policy to pursue a fraudulent transfer that was done according to procedure. The burden placed upon parties that unknowingly participated in the transfer should be minimal, but shutting the door on a hijack victim because the hijackers were really good and followed procedure seems unfair. _________________________________ Kevin R Erdman cell 317.289.3934 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:45, "Volker Greimann" wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > > I tend to agree here. A 'valid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was followed in performing the transfer. An 'invalid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was not followed, or not completely followed. > > A transfer against the will of the registrant may still have been a valid transfer, if process was adhered to. > > Do we need an additional term for such cases? > > Volker >> >>> See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar to >>> file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. >> >> Whilst I sympathise with the Registrant who has 'lost' control of the domains, the transfers were 'valid' in that they went through the normal transfer processes, were authorised by the contacts on the domain, and they were started by correctly logging into the losing registrar. >> >> If the details are exactly as described in the PDF I'd suggest they >> * first file a report with the police >> * go see their legal representative >> * contact the registries concerned >> * formally write to ICANN (as nothing in there indicated they had actually raised this with icann) >> >> Rob > > -- > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. > > Mit freundlichen Gr??en, > > Volker A. Greimann > - Rechtsabteilung - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net > www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net > www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > From kdorrain at adrforum.com Thu Feb 6 15:12:29 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:12:29 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> Message-ID: Yes, I want to be clear, I am not saying we backtrack and include this in the TDRP. But this type of issue is exactly the one Registrants are seeking a remedy for within ICANN. And we have to tell them, "sorry ICANN has no provisions for this." If a Registrar refuses to say "hey we were defrauded at the point of receiving the FOA", then a registrant has no recourse. The courts are not a good solution because of the same jurisdictional hurdles the other policies address. I believe we were going to tell ICANN "hey, we note that this is a problem. You might want to create something new to address this because we determined it doesn't fit in the TDRP." My point in sending it was to provide concrete evidence of the problem we're recommending ICANN address. Kristine -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Erdman Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:04 AM To: Volker Greimann Cc: rob.golding at astutium.com; gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string Hi Rob & Volker, I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained credentials to effect a transfer is a valid transfer. In the banking world, if I get Rob's banking credentials and transfer $10K to my account in North Korea, I complied with the procedures for a "valid transfer" but the transfer is reversible and has consequences. In the domain world, most courts have no power to get a domain transferred to North Korea, but ICANN does. Thus, I think that there should be some allowance to hijack victims under ICANN policy to pursue a fraudulent transfer that was done according to procedure. The burden placed upon parties that unknowingly participated in the transfer should be minimal, but shutting the door on a hijack victim because the hijackers were really good and followed procedure seems unfair. _________________________________ Kevin R Erdman cell 317.289.3934 Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:45, "Volker Greimann" wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > > I tend to agree here. A 'valid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was followed in performing the transfer. An 'invalid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was not followed, or not completely followed. > > A transfer against the will of the registrant may still have been a valid transfer, if process was adhered to. > > Do we need an additional term for such cases? > > Volker >> >>> See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar >>> to file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. >> >> Whilst I sympathise with the Registrant who has 'lost' control of the domains, the transfers were 'valid' in that they went through the normal transfer processes, were authorised by the contacts on the domain, and they were started by correctly logging into the losing registrar. >> >> If the details are exactly as described in the PDF I'd suggest they >> * first file a report with the police >> * go see their legal representative >> * contact the registries concerned >> * formally write to ICANN (as nothing in there indicated they had >> actually raised this with icann) >> >> Rob > > -- > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. > > Mit freundlichen Gr??en, > > Volker A. Greimann > - Rechtsabteilung - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / > www.BrandShelter.com > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: > DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net > > Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / > www.BrandShelter.com > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems > www.twitter.com/key_systems > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > From vgreimann at key-systems.net Thu Feb 6 15:22:58 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:22:58 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <52F3A8D2.9080702@key-systems.net> Hi Kevin, I am purely talking policy on this when I define "valid". 'Valid' in the sense of the policy is a transfer that has followed the policy rules. A transfer that was used with fraudulent means is just that: 'fraudulent'... So a valid transfer may have been fraudulent, but that does not make it invalid in the eyes of the current policy. So instead of expanding the interpretation of valid, I'd suggest we develop alternative language for what you mean by invalid, such as unauthorized or fraudulent... Volker Am 06.02.2014 16:04, schrieb Kevin Erdman: > Hi Rob & Volker, > > I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained credentials to effect a transfer is a valid transfer. In the banking world, if I get Rob's banking credentials and transfer $10K to my account in North Korea, I complied with the procedures for a "valid transfer" but the transfer is reversible and has consequences. In the domain world, most courts have no power to get a domain transferred to North Korea, but ICANN does. Thus, I think that there should be some allowance to hijack victims under ICANN policy to pursue a fraudulent transfer that was done according to procedure. The burden placed upon parties that unknowingly participated in the transfer should be minimal, but shutting the door on a hijack victim because the hijackers were really good and followed procedure seems unfair. > _________________________________ > Kevin R Erdman > > cell 317.289.3934 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:45, "Volker Greimann" wrote: >> >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> I tend to agree here. A 'valid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was followed in performing the transfer. An 'invalid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was not followed, or not completely followed. >> >> A transfer against the will of the registrant may still have been a valid transfer, if process was adhered to. >> >> Do we need an additional term for such cases? >> >> Volker >>>> See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar to >>>> file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. >>> Whilst I sympathise with the Registrant who has 'lost' control of the domains, the transfers were 'valid' in that they went through the normal transfer processes, were authorised by the contacts on the domain, and they were started by correctly logging into the losing registrar. >>> >>> If the details are exactly as described in the PDF I'd suggest they >>> * first file a report with the police >>> * go see their legal representative >>> * contact the registries concerned >>> * formally write to ICANN (as nothing in there indicated they had actually raised this with icann) >>> >>> Rob >> -- >> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. >> >> Mit freundlichen Gr??en, >> >> Volker A. Greimann >> - Rechtsabteilung - >> >> Key-Systems GmbH >> Im Oberen Werk 1 >> 66386 St. Ingbert >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com >> >> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems >> www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 >> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> www.keydrive.lu >> >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Volker A. Greimann >> - legal department - >> >> Key-Systems GmbH >> Im Oberen Werk 1 >> 66386 St. Ingbert >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com >> >> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems >> www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> CEO: Alexander Siffrin >> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 >> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> www.keydrive.lu >> >> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. >> >> >> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. From rob.golding at astutium.com Thu Feb 6 15:22:59 2014 From: rob.golding at astutium.com (rob.golding at astutium.com) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:22:59 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <88ee7c3effde1091f35bf862e9e67b50@astutium.com> > But this type of issue is exactly the one Registrants > are seeking a remedy for within ICANN. The 'claim' is that the transfer (validly completed) was 'fraudulent' because they allowed their details to be exploited/phished/socially engineered or whatever - that's going to need someone to investigate/prove/identify the details of the hack/exploit/scam. Ideally that's a job for the courts and specialists, not ICANN, not a Registrar etc (in many cases) - a *crime* has been committed - we're not 'judges' or qualified to make decisions about that. I hear the 'I've been hacked' story 100 times a week - usually after terminating a spammers services. One of the funniest was Monday someone claiming they never ordered something, and that we're been 'illegally taking money' from their bank account - obviously they must have been 'hacked' (and accused us of doing it) This is after the order came from their IP, it was paid (and 3d-secured at their bank) on their Debit card, they'd raised 3 support tickets/questions in the preceding month, we'd spoken to them by phone at least once ... 'I must have been hacked' translates into 'oh sh!t I forgot to cancel something I dont think I want anymore and rather than being reasonable and asking the company for a refund that they probably would have given without issue, I tried to fvck them over with bullcrap claims' As to the email-chain that started the thread, who is to determine they didnt sell the domains and now have buyers-remorse ? Or had their assets seized by the FBI ? or a million other possibilities ... > I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained > credentials I'm merely saying the *correct* credentials were used - if there is a claim that the obtaining of those is 'illegal' then go seek 'legal' counsel. Rob From vgreimann at key-systems.net Thu Feb 6 15:31:18 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:31:18 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <52F3AAC6.8010902@key-systems.net> Hi Kristine, I am clearly wearing my registrar hat here, but as the gaining registrar, we usually have no way of determining whether a transfer has been fraudulent or not. What we can see is if we upheld policy in effecting the transfer. The is what makes it valid or not. To see if it was fraudulent or not usually requires information we have no access to. I recently locked down a domain name due to a transfer complaint that appears to have many of the signs of a fraudulent transfer. We are the secondary gaining registrar on this alleged hijacking, meaning that the complainant is not the registrant that authorized the transfer. While I agree that there is a strong likelyhood of the transfer being part of a chain hijacking, we would not be able to prove it in court if the current registrant were to complain that we illegally deprived him of his domain name. Hence I feel very uncomfortable in releasing the domain name as nothing in ICANN policy would cover or indemnify us from such damages. Consequently, we have locked the domain as we would in a UDRP and advised the parties to settle this in court. Best, Volker Am 06.02.2014 16:12, schrieb Dorrain, Kristine: > Yes, I want to be clear, I am not saying we backtrack and include this in the TDRP. But this type of issue is exactly the one Registrants are seeking a remedy for within ICANN. And we have to tell them, "sorry ICANN has no provisions for this." If a Registrar refuses to say "hey we were defrauded at the point of receiving the FOA", then a registrant has no recourse. The courts are not a good solution because of the same jurisdictional hurdles the other policies address. > > I believe we were going to tell ICANN "hey, we note that this is a problem. You might want to create something new to address this because we determined it doesn't fit in the TDRP." My point in sending it was to provide concrete evidence of the problem we're recommending ICANN address. > > Kristine > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Erdman > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:04 AM > To: Volker Greimann > Cc: rob.golding at astutium.com; gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string > > > Hi Rob & Volker, > > I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained credentials to effect a transfer is a valid transfer. In the banking world, if I get Rob's banking credentials and transfer $10K to my account in North Korea, I complied with the procedures for a "valid transfer" but the transfer is reversible and has consequences. In the domain world, most courts have no power to get a domain transferred to North Korea, but ICANN does. Thus, I think that there should be some allowance to hijack victims under ICANN policy to pursue a fraudulent transfer that was done according to procedure. The burden placed upon parties that unknowingly participated in the transfer should be minimal, but shutting the door on a hijack victim because the hijackers were really good and followed procedure seems unfair. > _________________________________ > Kevin R Erdman > > cell 317.289.3934 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:45, "Volker Greimann" wrote: >> >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> I tend to agree here. A 'valid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was followed in performing the transfer. An 'invalid transfer' is a transfer where transfer policy was not followed, or not completely followed. >> >> A transfer against the will of the registrant may still have been a valid transfer, if process was adhered to. >> >> Do we need an additional term for such cases? >> >> Volker >>>> See the chain of emails from someone desperate for their registrar >>>> to file a TDRP-the registrar is refusing. >>> Whilst I sympathise with the Registrant who has 'lost' control of the domains, the transfers were 'valid' in that they went through the normal transfer processes, were authorised by the contacts on the domain, and they were started by correctly logging into the losing registrar. >>> >>> If the details are exactly as described in the PDF I'd suggest they >>> * first file a report with the police >>> * go see their legal representative >>> * contact the registries concerned >>> * formally write to ICANN (as nothing in there indicated they had >>> actually raised this with icann) >>> >>> Rob >> -- >> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. >> >> Mit freundlichen Gr??en, >> >> Volker A. Greimann >> - Rechtsabteilung - >> >> Key-Systems GmbH >> Im Oberen Werk 1 >> 66386 St. Ingbert >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / >> www.BrandShelter.com >> >> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems >> www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: >> DE211006534 >> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> www.keydrive.lu >> >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Volker A. Greimann >> - legal department - >> >> Key-Systems GmbH >> Im Oberen Werk 1 >> 66386 St. Ingbert >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / >> www.BrandShelter.com >> >> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems >> www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> CEO: Alexander Siffrin >> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 >> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> www.keydrive.lu >> >> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. >> >> >> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. From kdorrain at adrforum.com Thu Feb 6 15:33:05 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:33:05 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: <88ee7c3effde1091f35bf862e9e67b50@astutium.com> References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> <88ee7c3effde1091f35bf862e9e67b50@astutium.com> Message-ID: I can appreciate the concern here. I'm not a registrar, so I don't understand the nuances of transfer, but I do understand an FOA is needed. What if (and I don't know in this case, I'm talking generally), the FOA was fraudulent and the registrar "didn't suspect" fraud. I use quotes because I am asking (honestly, not rhetorically) what prevents a registrar from simply "not noticing" fraud? Does a registrar do any sort of validity check or "well, the request came from an authorized email account so who am I to ask questions"? Is there anything currently being done to encourage or train Registrars to spot fraudulent transfer requests? Sorry if my questions are very basic... -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of rob.golding at astutium.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:23 AM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string > But this type of issue is exactly the one Registrants are seeking a > remedy for within ICANN. The 'claim' is that the transfer (validly completed) was 'fraudulent' because they allowed their details to be exploited/phished/socially engineered or whatever - that's going to need someone to investigate/prove/identify the details of the hack/exploit/scam. Ideally that's a job for the courts and specialists, not ICANN, not a Registrar etc (in many cases) - a *crime* has been committed - we're not 'judges' or qualified to make decisions about that. I hear the 'I've been hacked' story 100 times a week - usually after terminating a spammers services. One of the funniest was Monday someone claiming they never ordered something, and that we're been 'illegally taking money' from their bank account - obviously they must have been 'hacked' (and accused us of doing it) This is after the order came from their IP, it was paid (and 3d-secured at their bank) on their Debit card, they'd raised 3 support tickets/questions in the preceding month, we'd spoken to them by phone at least once ... 'I must have been hacked' translates into 'oh sh!t I forgot to cancel something I dont think I want anymore and rather than being reasonable and asking the company for a refund that they probably would have given without issue, I tried to fvck them over with bullcrap claims' As to the email-chain that started the thread, who is to determine they didnt sell the domains and now have buyers-remorse ? Or had their assets seized by the FBI ? or a million other possibilities ... > I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained > credentials I'm merely saying the *correct* credentials were used - if there is a claim that the obtaining of those is 'illegal' then go seek 'legal' counsel. Rob From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Thu Feb 6 15:42:19 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:42:19 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Initial Report. I have accepted all changes made by Mikey in last week's draft since there were no objections to them on the call. I have then focused the edits on changes to WG Observations and Recommendations ? based on the outcome of Monday's call. I have not yet combined the sections of Issue Description and WG Observations that was suggested by the Group but it is on the list for the next update. Best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Initial Report V2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 424106 bytes Desc: GNSO Initial Report V2.docx URL: From vgreimann at key-systems.net Thu Feb 6 15:44:53 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:44:53 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> <88ee7c3effde1091f35bf862e9e67b50@astutium.com> Message-ID: <52F3ADF5.7010906@key-systems.net> Hi Kristine, the FOA can be obtained in various ways, but the most common one is an email sent to the registrant or admin email address containing a trigger that must be responded to in some fashion. So the transfer would have to be authorized by someone controlling the email account of the registrant. So in order to effectuate a fraudulent transfer the hacker would either have to have access to the email account of the registrant, or to have changed the email address in the whois prior to the transfer, an action that will be made much more difficult once ITRP-C is implemented. Best, Volker > I can appreciate the concern here. I'm not a registrar, so I don't understand the nuances of transfer, but I do understand an FOA is needed. What if (and I don't know in this case, I'm talking generally), the FOA was fraudulent and the registrar "didn't suspect" fraud. I use quotes because I am asking (honestly, not rhetorically) what prevents a registrar from simply "not noticing" fraud? Does a registrar do any sort of validity check or "well, the request came from an authorized email account so who am I to ask questions"? > > Is there anything currently being done to encourage or train Registrars to spot fraudulent transfer requests? > > Sorry if my questions are very basic... > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of rob.golding at astutium.com > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:23 AM > To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string > > >> But this type of issue is exactly the one Registrants are seeking a >> remedy for within ICANN. > The 'claim' is that the transfer (validly completed) was 'fraudulent' > because they allowed their details to be exploited/phished/socially engineered or whatever - that's going to need someone to investigate/prove/identify the details of the hack/exploit/scam. > > Ideally that's a job for the courts and specialists, not ICANN, not a Registrar etc (in many cases) - a *crime* has been committed - we're not 'judges' or qualified to make decisions about that. > > I hear the 'I've been hacked' story 100 times a week - usually after terminating a spammers services. > > One of the funniest was Monday someone claiming they never ordered something, and that we're been 'illegally taking money' from their bank account - obviously they must have been 'hacked' (and accused us of doing it) > > This is after the order came from their IP, it was paid (and 3d-secured at their bank) on their Debit card, they'd raised 3 support tickets/questions in the preceding month, we'd spoken to them by phone at least once ... > > 'I must have been hacked' translates into 'oh sh!t I forgot to cancel something I dont think I want anymore and rather than being reasonable and asking the company for a refund that they probably would have given without issue, I tried to fvck them over with bullcrap claims' > > As to the email-chain that started the thread, who is to determine they didnt sell the domains and now have buyers-remorse ? Or had their assets seized by the FBI ? or a million other possibilities ... > >> I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained >> credentials > I'm merely saying the *correct* credentials were used - if there is a claim that the obtaining of those is 'illegal' then go seek 'legal' > counsel. > > Rob > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf?gung. Mit freundlichen Gr??en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f?r den angegebenen Empf?nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver?ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf?nger ist unzul?ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f?r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. From mike at haven2.com Sat Feb 8 13:45:02 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 07:45:02 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> <88ee7c3effde1091f35bf862e9e67b50@astutium.com> Message-ID: <43BF86B1-EBA4-4FE6-8F35-5EDE8C3DC7ED@haven2.com> sorry to come in so late on this. i think there are two possible use-cases here, one of which is covered by existing policy and one by the new inter-registrant policy from IRTP-C existing policy - applies to a dispute between registrars - so if the problem with an FOA is fraud perpetrated by a registrar, i would think TDRP would apply inter-registrant policy - applies to a dispute involving the transfer of a domain between registrants (almost always the case in a hijacking) my read of the email thread is that the root of this dispute is inter-registrant (the theft). i think that the new IRTP-C process, which will require more notification and verification of inter-registrant transfers may nip a lot of these in the bud (i sure hope they do, anyway). the conversation then gets quite muddled and i think would benefit a lot from clearer information about the purpose and limits of the TDRP. i?ve been at this a long time and it?s only recently that i?ve come to understand those things. in the case of this email thread i probably would have written back saying something like this ?The you and your Registrar appear to disagree whether this situation is addressed by the TDRP ? I would suggest forwarding this question to ICANN Compliance for review.? *my* read of this is that the registrar just didn?t think that TDRP applied, nothing more. i think policy *will* have something to say about this case once IRTP-C gets implemented, but it doesn?t right now. m On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: > > I can appreciate the concern here. I'm not a registrar, so I don't understand the nuances of transfer, but I do understand an FOA is needed. What if (and I don't know in this case, I'm talking generally), the FOA was fraudulent and the registrar "didn't suspect" fraud. I use quotes because I am asking (honestly, not rhetorically) what prevents a registrar from simply "not noticing" fraud? Does a registrar do any sort of validity check or "well, the request came from an authorized email account so who am I to ask questions"? > > Is there anything currently being done to encourage or train Registrars to spot fraudulent transfer requests? > > Sorry if my questions are very basic... > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of rob.golding at astutium.com > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:23 AM > To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string > > >> But this type of issue is exactly the one Registrants are seeking a >> remedy for within ICANN. > > The 'claim' is that the transfer (validly completed) was 'fraudulent' > because they allowed their details to be exploited/phished/socially engineered or whatever - that's going to need someone to investigate/prove/identify the details of the hack/exploit/scam. > > Ideally that's a job for the courts and specialists, not ICANN, not a Registrar etc (in many cases) - a *crime* has been committed - we're not 'judges' or qualified to make decisions about that. > > I hear the 'I've been hacked' story 100 times a week - usually after terminating a spammers services. > > One of the funniest was Monday someone claiming they never ordered something, and that we're been 'illegally taking money' from their bank account - obviously they must have been 'hacked' (and accused us of doing it) > > This is after the order came from their IP, it was paid (and 3d-secured at their bank) on their Debit card, they'd raised 3 support tickets/questions in the preceding month, we'd spoken to them by phone at least once ... > > 'I must have been hacked' translates into 'oh sh!t I forgot to cancel something I dont think I want anymore and rather than being reasonable and asking the company for a refund that they probably would have given without issue, I tried to fvck them over with bullcrap claims' > > As to the email-chain that started the thread, who is to determine they didnt sell the domains and now have buyers-remorse ? Or had their assets seized by the FBI ? or a million other possibilities ... > >> I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained >> credentials > > I'm merely saying the *correct* credentials were used - if there is a claim that the obtaining of those is 'illegal' then go seek 'legal' > counsel. > > Rob > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) From h.raiche at internode.on.net Sun Feb 9 19:25:41 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:25:41 +1100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87850665-284C-4725-AA48-878EF1CFA7C2@internode.on.net> Hi Lars I think we went further on the registrants' issue. Apart from an improved ICANN website with full information, we suggested that registrants should be able to go to compliance to have them insist the relevant registrar take action on behalf of the registrant when an ICANN policy/requirement has not been complied with - and this possibility of action by compliance be included in the FAQ/website Thanks Holly On 07/02/2014, at 2:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: > Dear all, > Please find attached an updated version of the Initial Report. > I have accepted all changes made by Mikey in last week's draft since there were no objections to them on the call. I have then focused the edits on changes to WG Observations and Recommendations ? based on the outcome of Monday's call. I have not yet combined the sections of Issue Description and WG Observations that was suggested by the Group but it is on the list for the next update. > Best wishes, > Lars > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Feb 10 08:45:35 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:45:35 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update In-Reply-To: <87850665-284C-4725-AA48-878EF1CFA7C2@internode.on.net> References: <87850665-284C-4725-AA48-878EF1CFA7C2@internode.on.net> Message-ID: Dear Holly, dear all, Thank you for pointing this out. Would it work for you/the Group if we included the following paragraph into Section 5.2.4.3 (Recommendation Charter Question D): In combination with the improvements to the ICANN website, the Working Group recommends that ICANN Compliance clearly indicates on its FAQ/help section under which circumstances it can assist registrants with transfer disputes. This should include situations when registrants can ask ICANN Compliance to insist on registrars taking action on behalf of said registrant because ICANN policies may not have been complied with by one or several registrars. In addition, the draft agenda for today's call below. Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda: IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 10 February 2013, 16.00 UTC 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on Draft Initial Report - Recommendations on p. 22 onwards 3. If time: First read through the Use Cases (Annex C) 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting From: Holly Raiche > Date: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:25 PM To: Lars Hoffmann > Cc: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update Hi Lars I think we went further on the registrants' issue. Apart from an improved ICANN website with full information, we suggested that registrants should be able to go to compliance to have them insist the relevant registrar take action on behalf of the registrant when an ICANN policy/requirement has not been complied with - and this possibility of action by compliance be included in the FAQ/website Thanks Holly On 07/02/2014, at 2:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Initial Report. I have accepted all changes made by Mikey in last week's draft since there were no objections to them on the call. I have then focused the edits on changes to WG Observations and Recommendations ? based on the outcome of Monday's call. I have not yet combined the sections of Issue Description and WG Observations that was suggested by the Group but it is on the list for the next update. Best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.raiche at internode.on.net Mon Feb 10 09:42:57 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:42:57 +1100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update In-Reply-To: References: <87850665-284C-4725-AA48-878EF1CFA7C2@internode.on.net> Message-ID: Thanks Lars That does reflect the discussions we have had Holly On 10/02/2014, at 7:45 PM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: > Dear Holly, dear all, > > Thank you for pointing this out. Would it work for you/the Group if we included the following paragraph into Section 5.2.4.3 (Recommendation Charter Question D): > > In combination with the improvements to the ICANN website, the Working Group recommends that ICANN Compliance clearly indicates on its FAQ/help section under which circumstances it can assist registrants with transfer disputes. This should include situations when registrants can ask ICANN Compliance to insist on registrars taking action on behalf of said registrant because ICANN policies may not have been complied with by one or several registrars. > > In addition, the draft agenda for today's call below. > Best wishes, Lars > > > Draft Agenda: IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 10 February 2013, 16.00 UTC > > 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates > > 2. Discussion on Draft Initial Report > - Recommendations on p. 22 onwards > > 3. If time: First read through the Use Cases (Annex C) > > 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting > > > > > > > From: Holly Raiche > Date: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:25 PM > To: Lars Hoffmann > Cc: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update > > Hi Lars > > I think we went further on the registrants' issue. Apart from an improved ICANN website with full information, we suggested that registrants should be able to go to compliance to have them insist the relevant registrar take action on behalf of the registrant when an ICANN policy/requirement has not been complied with - and this possibility of action by compliance be included in the FAQ/website > > Thanks > > Holly > > > On 07/02/2014, at 2:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: > >> Dear all, >> Please find attached an updated version of the Initial Report. >> I have accepted all changes made by Mikey in last week's draft since there were no objections to them on the call. I have then focused the edits on changes to WG Observations and Recommendations ? based on the outcome of Monday's call. I have not yet combined the sections of Issue Description and WG Observations that was suggested by the Group but it is on the list for the next update. >> Best wishes, >> Lars >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Feb 10 10:25:03 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:25:03 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update In-Reply-To: References: <87850665-284C-4725-AA48-878EF1CFA7C2@internode.on.net> Message-ID: Dear Holly, all, I have inserted the paragraph in the Draft Initial Report under 5.2.4.3Preliminary Recommendation for Charter Question D. As part of this, I have slightly re-structured this section's preliminary recommendations. YOU can find the latest version (V3) attached to this email. Best wishes, Lars From: Holly Raiche > Date: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:42 AM To: Lars Hoffmann > Cc: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update Thanks Lars That does reflect the discussions we have had Holly On 10/02/2014, at 7:45 PM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: Dear Holly, dear all, Thank you for pointing this out. Would it work for you/the Group if we included the following paragraph into Section 5.2.4.3 (Recommendation Charter Question D): In combination with the improvements to the ICANN website, the Working Group recommends that ICANN Compliance clearly indicates on its FAQ/help section under which circumstances it can assist registrants with transfer disputes. This should include situations when registrants can ask ICANN Compliance to insist on registrars taking action on behalf of said registrant because ICANN policies may not have been complied with by one or several registrars. In addition, the draft agenda for today's call below. Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda: IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 10 February 2013, 16.00 UTC 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on Draft Initial Report - Recommendations on p. 22 onwards 3. If time: First read through the Use Cases (Annex C) 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting From: Holly Raiche > Date: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:25 PM To: Lars Hoffmann > Cc: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update Hi Lars I think we went further on the registrants' issue. Apart from an improved ICANN website with full information, we suggested that registrants should be able to go to compliance to have them insist the relevant registrar take action on behalf of the registrant when an ICANN policy/requirement has not been complied with - and this possibility of action by compliance be included in the FAQ/website Thanks Holly On 07/02/2014, at 2:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Initial Report. I have accepted all changes made by Mikey in last week's draft since there were no objections to them on the call. I have then focused the edits on changes to WG Observations and Recommendations ? based on the outcome of Monday's call. I have not yet combined the sections of Issue Description and WG Observations that was suggested by the Group but it is on the list for the next update. Best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Initial Report V3.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 434390 bytes Desc: GNSO Initial Report V3.docx URL: From kdorrain at adrforum.com Mon Feb 10 14:12:11 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string In-Reply-To: <43BF86B1-EBA4-4FE6-8F35-5EDE8C3DC7ED@haven2.com> References: <76db797635ef675d5dbb469623e978f0@astutium.com> <52F36729.8080009@key-systems.net> <88ee7c3effde1091f35bf862e9e67b50@astutium.com> <43BF86B1-EBA4-4FE6-8F35-5EDE8C3DC7ED@haven2.com> Message-ID: This was not the entire conversation. Once my case coordinator figured out the question was out of his ability to answer, he forwarded it to me and I did direct the person to compliance, including sending him the link to Transfer Disputes on ICANN's site. He said ICANN told him they can't help him. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 7:45 AM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string sorry to come in so late on this. i think there are two possible use-cases here, one of which is covered by existing policy and one by the new inter-registrant policy from IRTP-C existing policy - applies to a dispute between registrars - so if the problem with an FOA is fraud perpetrated by a registrar, i would think TDRP would apply inter-registrant policy - applies to a dispute involving the transfer of a domain between registrants (almost always the case in a hijacking) my read of the email thread is that the root of this dispute is inter-registrant (the theft). i think that the new IRTP-C process, which will require more notification and verification of inter-registrant transfers may nip a lot of these in the bud (i sure hope they do, anyway). the conversation then gets quite muddled and i think would benefit a lot from clearer information about the purpose and limits of the TDRP. i've been at this a long time and it's only recently that i've come to understand those things. in the case of this email thread i probably would have written back saying something like this "The you and your Registrar appear to disagree whether this situation is addressed by the TDRP - I would suggest forwarding this question to ICANN Compliance for review." *my* read of this is that the registrar just didn't think that TDRP applied, nothing more. i think policy *will* have something to say about this case once IRTP-C gets implemented, but it doesn't right now. m On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: > > I can appreciate the concern here. I'm not a registrar, so I don't understand the nuances of transfer, but I do understand an FOA is needed. What if (and I don't know in this case, I'm talking generally), the FOA was fraudulent and the registrar "didn't suspect" fraud. I use quotes because I am asking (honestly, not rhetorically) what prevents a registrar from simply "not noticing" fraud? Does a registrar do any sort of validity check or "well, the request came from an authorized email account so who am I to ask questions"? > > Is there anything currently being done to encourage or train Registrars to spot fraudulent transfer requests? > > Sorry if my questions are very basic... > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] > On Behalf Of rob.golding at astutium.com > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 9:23 AM > To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] Example email string > > >> But this type of issue is exactly the one Registrants are seeking a >> remedy for within ICANN. > > The 'claim' is that the transfer (validly completed) was 'fraudulent' > because they allowed their details to be exploited/phished/socially engineered or whatever - that's going to need someone to investigate/prove/identify the details of the hack/exploit/scam. > > Ideally that's a job for the courts and specialists, not ICANN, not a Registrar etc (in many cases) - a *crime* has been committed - we're not 'judges' or qualified to make decisions about that. > > I hear the 'I've been hacked' story 100 times a week - usually after terminating a spammers services. > > One of the funniest was Monday someone claiming they never ordered > something, and that we're been 'illegally taking money' from their > bank account - obviously they must have been 'hacked' (and accused us > of doing it) > > This is after the order came from their IP, it was paid (and 3d-secured at their bank) on their Debit card, they'd raised 3 support tickets/questions in the preceding month, we'd spoken to them by phone at least once ... > > 'I must have been hacked' translates into 'oh sh!t I forgot to cancel something I dont think I want anymore and rather than being reasonable and asking the company for a refund that they probably would have given without issue, I tried to fvck them over with bullcrap claims' > > As to the email-chain that started the thread, who is to determine they didnt sell the domains and now have buyers-remorse ? Or had their assets seized by the FBI ? or a million other possibilities ... > >> I disagree with the position that a party using illegally obtained >> credentials > > I'm merely saying the *correct* credentials were used - if there is a claim that the obtaining of those is 'illegal' then go seek 'legal' > counsel. > > Rob > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Feb 10 20:09:20 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:09:20 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 10 February 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 17 February 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 10 February 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140210-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Avri Doria - NCSG Mikey O'Connor - ISPCP Barbara Knight - RySG Kristina Dorrain - NAF Volker Greimann - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Angie Graves - BC Chris Chaplow - CBUC Kevin Erdman - IPC Apologies: Paul Diaz - RySG ICANN staff: Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 10 February 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group meeting, Monday 10 February 2014 Graeme Bunton:G'mornin Berry Cobb:Lori is welcome to join the WG now Nathalie Peregrine:Angie Graves has joined the AC room Nathalie Peregrine:Kevin Erdman has joined the call Avri Doria:This is one where i think we need a footnote reminding that in the case of any registrant issues, if complaince denies having a role or whatever, the registratn still has recourse to ombudsman Bladel:Avri: Can you clarify? I don't think the Ombudsman can compel a registrar to act, but they can compel compliance to respond to a compliant against a registrar..... Berry Cobb:The Starting Sequence # schema is missing #5 Volker Greimann:Where James is even the screen is freezing Kristine Dorrain:Yes. Volker Greimann:hmmm Volker Greimann:go ahead Bladel:or NOT hear that the mic is broken. :) Volker Greimann:i am back Volker Greimann:found the error Barbara Knight:Thanks James Volker Greimann:This does open up a potential issue for the aftermarket of course... Avri Doria:i like the notion of vestigial hands. Avri Doria:James, the ombudsman cant comepell anyone to anything. The ombudsman can, however, mediate anything, convince etc, on any ICANN issue except issues having to do with employees. Avri Doria:so it is another avenue of possible redress i think should be flaged. Bladel:They can be separate/different contacts Holly Raiche:Thanks James Graeme Bunton:+1 Avri Doria:bye, thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Feb 14 18:53:21 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:53:21 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Draft - Agenda Message-ID: Dear all, Attached is the latest Draft of the Initial Report. I have combined the 'Background' and 'Observation' sections that precede each of the recommendations. I made no substantive changes and everything is redlined. In addition, here is the Draft Agenda for Monday 17 February 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on Draft Initial Report - Recommendations on p. 22 onwards 3. Mop-up Section? 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting Have a lovely weekend! Best, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Initial Report V4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 449187 bytes Desc: GNSO Initial Report V4.docx URL: From mike at haven2.com Sun Feb 16 19:32:59 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:32:59 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Draft - Agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1511E7B6-8312-41F0-8C38-1169DA29CEBF@haven2.com> hi all, i?ve taken a pass through the draft and revised the language a bit ? i don?t think i?ve changed the substance of the draft, mostly sharpened up the language a bit. it?s attached for your review. mikey On Feb 14, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: > Dear all, > > Attached is the latest Draft of the Initial Report. I have combined the 'Background' and 'Observation' sections that precede each of the recommendations. I made no substantive changes and everything is redlined. > > In addition, here is the Draft Agenda for Monday 17 February 2014 > > > 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates > > 2. Discussion on Draft Initial Report > - Recommendations on p. 22 onwards > > 3. Mop-up Section? > > 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting > > > Have a lovely weekend! > Best, > Lars > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-D Initial Report V4 MO.doc Type: application/msword Size: 676864 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Feb 17 18:34:45 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:34:45 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 24 February 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 24 February 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 17 February 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140217-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Holly Raiche - ALAC Angie Graves - Observer Mikey O'Connor ? ISPCP James Bladel - RrSG Paul Diaz ? RySG Kevin Erdman - IPC Rob Golding - RrSG Volker Greimann ? RrSG Apologies: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Barbara Knight ? RySG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Amy Bivins Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Terri Agnew Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 17 February 2014: Lars Hoffmann: Welcome to the IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 17 February 2014 Nathalie Peregrine: Rob Golding has joined the call Mike O'Connor: drafting note: we'll want to label the use-case section as "super-draft" or "ultra-draft" or something Marika Konings: staff needs some time to format / finalize document and submits it to web-admin for posting - ideally on 3rd March... Marika Konings: would it be option for the WG to meet on Friday before to finalize? Marika Konings: James - the idea would be to open it before but have it run through and after Sinapore. Marika Konings: if opening after Singapore, you'll need to count on additional 21 + 21 days before you can start working on the Final Report. Bladel: Right, I was thikning 45 days Bladel: THere are certainly no shortage of other tpiocs we can work on. ;) Berry Cobb: 23:59 3 March Marika Konings: which timezone? ;-) Berry Cobb: utc Bladel: Hawaii Bladel: :) Marika Konings: as said, if we can give our colleagues a heads up that a document is likely to be coming for posting on 3rd, we would be able to do so shortly after the meeting (provided the WG agrees to publish) Marika Konings: Just to note - a consensus call can also be done on the mailing list. Marika Konings: it doesn't necessarily require a call - unless there are specific items to be discussed Lars Hoffmann: i am happy to get a survey monkey out as soon as you like. Nathalie Peregrine: Volker Greimann has joined the call Berry Cobb: that was for irtp-c Bladel: Right, Berry. Thanks. Not on topic for tday. Nathalie Peregrine: Kevin Erdman has joined the call Berry Cobb: I'd do the consensus call into the 25th or so. Paul Diaz (Public Interest Registry): more snow?!?! %Q&%! groundhog... Bladel: Ah Paull, you konw it doesn't count until it hits the East coast. :) Volker Greimann: sound in the adobe is gone Nathalie Peregrine: Recordings have been stopped and AC audio disconnected Berry Cobb: yes / no / support with changes [free form] Berry Cobb: the other option as Marika mentioned....just do it via email. "If no one objects, then we declare the recommendation full consensus" Bladel: Yep, that worked for IRTP C. But some folks later felt that they had more to say about some of those recommendations... Berry Cobb: so then the options..... Bladel: What mikey said. :) Berry Cobb: no objection / could support w/ change [free form] Berry Cobb: all to avoid the "voting" Volker Greimann: any chance to get the sound back, or should i dial in? Mike O'Connor: we're just about done... Mike O'Connor: wrapping up now. Volker Greimann: ok -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Feb 17 18:56:30 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:56:30 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 17 February 2014 In-Reply-To: <1392658889.64894.YahooMailNeo@web164704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1392655639.98208.YahooMailNeo@web164705.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1392658889.64894.YahooMailNeo@web164704.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 24 February 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 17 February 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140217-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Holly Raiche - ALAC Angie Graves ? Observer CSG Mikey O'Connor ? ISPCP James Bladel - RrSG Paul Diaz ? RySG Kevin Erdman - IPC Rob Golding - RrSG Volker Greimann ? RrSG Apologies: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Barbara Knight ? RySG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Amy Bivins Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Terri Agnew Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Peregrine Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 17 February 2014: Lars Hoffmann: Welcome to the IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 17 February 2014 Nathalie Peregrine: Rob Golding has joined the call Mike O'Connor: drafting note: we'll want to label the use-case section as "super-draft" or "ultra-draft" or something Marika Konings: staff needs some time to format / finalize document and submits it to web-admin for posting - ideally on 3rd March... Marika Konings: would it be option for the WG to meet on Friday before to finalize? Marika Konings: James - the idea would be to open it before but have it run through and after Sinapore. Marika Konings: if opening after Singapore, you'll need to count on additional 21 + 21 days before you can start working on the Final Report. Bladel: Right, I was thikning 45 days Bladel: THere are certainly no shortage of other tpiocs we can work on. ;) Berry Cobb: 23:59 3 March Marika Konings: which timezone? ;-) Berry Cobb: utc Bladel: Hawaii Bladel: :) Marika Konings: as said, if we can give our colleagues a heads up that a document is likely to be coming for posting on 3rd, we would be able to do so shortly after the meeting (provided the WG agrees to publish) Marika Konings: Just to note - a consensus call can also be done on the mailing list. Marika Konings: it doesn't necessarily require a call - unless there are specific items to be discussed Lars Hoffmann: i am happy to get a survey monkey out as soon as you like. Nathalie Peregrine: Volker Greimann has joined the call Berry Cobb: that was for irtp-c Bladel: Right, Berry. Thanks. Not on topic for tday. Nathalie Peregrine: Kevin Erdman has joined the call Berry Cobb: I'd do the consensus call into the 25th or so. Paul Diaz (Public Interest Registry): more snow?!?! %Q&%! groundhog... Bladel: Ah Paull, you konw it doesn't count until it hits the East coast. :) Volker Greimann: sound in the adobe is gone Nathalie Peregrine: Recordings have been stopped and AC audio disconnected Berry Cobb: yes / no / support with changes [free form] Berry Cobb: the other option as Marika mentioned....just do it via email. "If no one objects, then we declare the recommendation full consensus" Bladel: Yep, that worked for IRTP C. But some folks later felt that they had more to say about some of those recommendations... Berry Cobb: so then the options..... Bladel: What mikey said. :) Berry Cobb: no objection / could support w/ change [free form] Berry Cobb: all to avoid the "voting" Volker Greimann: any chance to get the sound back, or should i dial in? Mike O'Connor: we're just about done... Mike O'Connor: wrapping up now. Volker Greimann: ok -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Tue Feb 18 10:44:55 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 02:44:55 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Assessing Consensus Level: Please respond by Friday 21 February 2014! Message-ID: Dear all, We are nearing the final draft of the Initial Report and have entered that part of the working group process where we would like to assess the level of consensus around the recommendations that the working group is proposing. Following yesterday's discussion on our call, please use this survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8GG3BY It contains the Charter questions and recommendation as they stand. You will have the opportunity to indicate your support, opposition or provide edits. The deadline for responding to the survey is Friday, 21 February 2014 23:59:59 UTC Minor changes to the Initial Report will be welcome until Friday 28 February 2014 23:59:59 UTC. In addition, the full Initial Report is attached to this email, as both a redline and a clean copy. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact either the co-Chairs, Mikey and James, or policy staff. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_Clean.doc Type: application/msword Size: 576000 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_Clean.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_Redline.doc Type: application/msword Size: 676864 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_Redline.doc URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Thu Feb 20 10:38:42 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 02:38:42 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Reminder: Assessing Consensus Level: Please respond by Friday 21 February 2014! Message-ID: Dear all, Please note that the deadline to fill in the Consensus Level Survey ends tomorrow. I would like to encourage all those that have not replied yet to do so by tomorrow 23:59:59 UTC. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Lars Hoffmann > Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:44 AM To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Assessing Consensus Level: Please respond by Friday 21 February 2014! Dear all, We are nearing the final draft of the Initial Report and have entered that part of the working group process where we would like to assess the level of consensus around the recommendations that the working group is proposing. Following yesterday's discussion on our call, please use this survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8GG3BY It contains the Charter questions and recommendation as they stand. You will have the opportunity to indicate your support, opposition or provide edits. The deadline for responding to the survey is Friday, 21 February 2014 23:59:59 UTC Minor changes to the Initial Report will be welcome until Friday 28 February 2014 23:59:59 UTC. In addition, the full Initial Report is attached to this email, as both a redline and a clean copy. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact either the co-Chairs, Mikey and James, or policy staff. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_Clean.doc Type: application/msword Size: 576000 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_Clean.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_Redline.doc Type: application/msword Size: 676864 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_Redline.doc URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Feb 21 08:45:10 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:45:10 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review Message-ID: Dear all, This is the final reminder to those who have not yet filled in the Survey to assess the consensus level to please do so by 23:50:59 UTC today. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8GG3BY And below you can also find the Draft Agenda for Monday's meeting. Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda, IRTP Part D PDP Working Group, Monday 24 February 2014, 16.00 UTC 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Review draft Initial Report and begin determining whether we have sufficient agreement to submit it. 3. Next steps / confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Sat Feb 22 09:55:30 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:55:30 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Survey Assessing Consensus Level Message-ID: Dear all, In preparation for our meeting on Monday, please find attached a summary of the comments received (intended to facilitate theWG's review during Monday's call). In total we received 10 completed surveys* and those names that do not appear in the overview marked their responses with 'no objections'. Best wishes Lars *Survey Participants: Simonetta Batteiger James Bladel Chris Chaplow Kristine Dorrain Rob Golding Volker Greimann Barbara Knight Bartlett Morgan Mikey O'Connor Holly Raiche -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Consensus Level Survey.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52224 bytes Desc: Consensus Level Survey.doc URL: From mike at haven2.com Sat Feb 22 12:50:35 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 06:50:35 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Survey Assessing Consensus Level In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, we?ve got some discussion points in here that we need to try to get through on the list and the call next week. so *PLEASE* read the document that Lars has prepared and let?s have at it. topics that caught my eye: - whether to eliminate the first-level (registry) DRP layer. turns out we?re not as unified on this one as i thought. so let?s work on that a bit - a bit more fleshing out of the impact/benefits of extending the statute of limitations from 6 to 12 months seems in order - some conversation about the ?above the fold? placement of the help links on the ICANN site proving that the survey was a pretty good device to trigger comments! mikey On Feb 22, 2014, at 3:55 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: > Dear all, > > In preparation for our meeting on Monday, please find attached a summary of the comments received (intended to facilitate theWG's review during Monday's call). > > In total we received 10 completed surveys* and those names that do not appear in the overview marked their responses with 'no objections'. > > Best wishes > Lars > > > > > *Survey Participants: > Simonetta Batteiger > James Bladel > Chris Chaplow > Kristine Dorrain > Rob Golding > Volker Greimann > Barbara Knight > Bartlett Morgan > Mikey O'Connor > Holly Raiche > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Feb 24 18:15:34 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:15:34 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 24 February 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 3 March 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 24 February 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140224-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Mikey O'Connor ? ISPCP Barbara Knight ? RySG Kristina Dorrain ? NAF Volker Greimann ? RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Chris Chaplow ? CBUC Holly Raiche - ALAC Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG Kevin Erdman ? IPC Angie Graves ? BC Avri Doria - NCSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Amy Bivins Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 24 February 2014: We apologize for the absence of the content of the AC chat content for this week's call, it was unfortunately deleted and the Adobe Connect system does not keep archives of the chat pod. We deeply regret the inconvenience caused. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Tue Feb 25 11:30:21 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:30:21 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Draft Initial Report Message-ID: Dear all, Following yesterday's call, please find attached an updated version of the Draft Initial Report. Editing changes were made to Questions B and D. The rationale for question B was extended (re: extension of the statute of limitations) In addition, I noted for Questions C and D that the WG would like to solicit public comment especially on the issues of: * the potential need to refund consts to registrars if/when transfers are negated/reversed (Question B) * The potential need to define 'invalid transfers (Question B) * The potential abolition of the registry layer (Question C) I would like to encourage WG members strongly to share any concerns/edits on the list as the submission deadline for Singapore is next Monday 3 March 2014. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_V5[1].doc Type: application/msword Size: 582656 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_V5[1].doc URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Feb 27 09:29:41 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:29:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Draft Initial Report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Excellent work, Lars. We are very close! Some edits attached. Thanks- J. From: Lars Hoffmann > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 5:30 To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Draft Initial Report Dear all, Following yesterday's call, please find attached an updated version of the Draft Initial Report. Editing changes were made to Questions B and D. The rationale for question B was extended (re: extension of the statute of limitations) In addition, I noted for Questions C and D that the WG would like to solicit public comment especially on the issues of: * the potential need to refund consts to registrars if/when transfers are negated/reversed (Question B) * The potential need to define 'invalid transfers (Question B) * The potential abolition of the registry layer (Question C) I would like to encourage WG members strongly to share any concerns/edits on the list as the submission deadline for Singapore is next Monday 3 March 2014. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_V5 - JMB EDITS.doc Type: application/msword Size: 588800 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_V5 - JMB EDITS.doc URL: From mike at haven2.com Fri Feb 28 13:19:03 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:19:03 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Draft Initial Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19D7D196-BF24-42FF-925F-F5B223E5CA6C@haven2.com> some more edits attached to this one? m On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:29 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: > Excellent work, Lars. We are very close! > > Some edits attached. > > Thanks? > > J. > > > From: Lars Hoffmann > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 5:30 > To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Draft Initial Report > > Dear all, > > Following yesterday's call, please find attached an updated version of the Draft Initial Report. > > Editing changes were made to Questions B and D. The rationale for question B was extended (re: extension of the statute of limitations) > > In addition, I noted for Questions C and D that the WG would like to solicit public comment especially on the issues of: > the potential need to refund consts to registrars if/when transfers are negated/reversed (Question B) > The potential need to define 'invalid transfers (Question B) > The potential abolition of the registry layer (Question C) > I would like to encourage WG members strongly to share any concerns/edits on the list as the submission deadline for Singapore is next Monday 3 March 2014. > > Many thanks and best wishes, > Lars > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Fri Feb 28 13:19:55 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:19:55 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Draft Initial Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bah? this time with a file attached. sorry about that. mikey On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:29 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: > Excellent work, Lars. We are very close! > > Some edits attached. > > Thanks? > > J. > > > From: Lars Hoffmann > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 5:30 > To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Draft Initial Report > > Dear all, > > Following yesterday's call, please find attached an updated version of the Draft Initial Report. > > Editing changes were made to Questions B and D. The rationale for question B was extended (re: extension of the statute of limitations) > > In addition, I noted for Questions C and D that the WG would like to solicit public comment especially on the issues of: > the potential need to refund consts to registrars if/when transfers are negated/reversed (Question B) > The potential need to define 'invalid transfers (Question B) > The potential abolition of the registry layer (Question C) > I would like to encourage WG members strongly to share any concerns/edits on the list as the submission deadline for Singapore is next Monday 3 March 2014. > > Many thanks and best wishes, > Lars > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_V5 - MOC JMB EDITS.doc Type: application/msword Size: 591360 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Feb 28 14:22:04 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 06:22:04 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Latest Version and Draft Agenda Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached an updated version of the Draft Initial Report that also contains a full Executive Summary. Regarding James' comment on p. 25 (redline version) I have double checked with Compliance and will amend on Monday (they are not yet awake in the LA office it seems). As you will see I have attached a redline version (that includes both Mikey's and James' comments/edits) as well as a clean version for ease of reading. Looking forward to our meeting on Monday and hope that we can send the Initial Report out for public comment after our call. Speaking of, please find the draft agenda below. Best wishes, Lars Proposed Draft Agenda ? IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 03 March 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Review of draft Initial Report anddetermining whether we have sufficient agreement to submit today 3. Next steps / confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_V6.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 452896 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_V6.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DInitial Report_V6_clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 442552 bytes Desc: IRTP-DInitial Report_V6_clean.docx URL: