From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Thu Jan 2 07:51:41 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 23:51:41 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] =?Windows-1252?Q?Happy_new_year_and_=8A_Monday's_agenda?= Message-ID: Dear all, First, let me wish you a very happy, healthy and successful 2014! I hope you were able to wind down during the holiday period and had the chance to recharge those batteries for the challenges ahead. Speaking of ? Please find below the agenda for Monday's IRTP Part D PDP WG meeting. Many thanks and see you all on Monday! Best wishes, Lars Proposed Agenda IRTP Part D PDP Working Group Meeting, 6 January 2014, 16.00 UTC, for local times see http://tinyurl.com/oo2gmtv 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on circulated view of ICANN Compliance on TDRP (see below) 3. If time: Revisit Work Plan 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting ---- >From an ICANN Compliance point of view Scenarios (under IRTP as it stands) in which ICANN Compliance has the authority to act: Regarding the loosing registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrant was not able to retrieve the auth code from the control panel, then the registrant requested the registrar to send it but it was not sent within the required 5 days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) - the means provided by the registrar for the registrant to retrieve the auth code are more restrictive than the means provided for the registrant to update its contact or name server information - the registrar sends the Auth Code to someone who is not the registered name holder - the registrar does not even send it at all FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - sends it to someone who is not a Transfer Contact Unlocking of the domain name: - the registrant did not have the means provided by the registrar to unlock the domain name, then the registrant requested the registrar to unlock the domains and the registrar did not unlock them within the five days ----- (the breach in this case is when both conditions are present) Regarding the gaining registrar: Auth-code related: - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving the Auth-code - which would be technically impossible but can theoretically happen (in a scenario also involving registry error) FOA related: - the registrar does not send the FOA - the registrar sends the FOA to someone who is not a Transfer Contact - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving confirmation after sending the FOA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rob.golding at astutium.com Thu Jan 2 13:52:14 2014 From: rob.golding at astutium.com (rob.golding at astutium.com) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:52:14 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Happy new year and =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=A0=20Monday=27s?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20agenda?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a089840ea378122900d558dd44d2a11@astutium.com> > FROM AN ICANN COMPLIANCE POINT OF VIEW > REGARDING THE LOOSING REGISTRAR: > - the registrar sends the Auth Code to someone who is not the > registered name holder IME the majority of registrars send the EPP codes to the *admin* contact > - the registrar does not even send it at all Are ICANN siggesting they'll start doing something about the repeat offenders of that little 'trick' ? > FOA related: > - the registrar does not send the FOA > - sends it to someone who is not a Transfer Contact A Transfer Contact - what's that ? I've only ever heard of Regsitrant, Admin, Tech and Billing contacts > REGARDING THE GAINING REGISTRAR: > - the registrar sends the FOA to someone who is not a Transfer Contact See above > - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving confirmation > after sending the FOA How does that compare to the 'it happens anyway after 5 days if no-one said no' policy ? Rob From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Jan 3 14:17:37 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:17:37 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_[gnso-irtpd]_Happy_new_year_and_=8A_Monday's_agenda?= In-Reply-To: <1a089840ea378122900d558dd44d2a11@astutium.com> Message-ID: Responses in-line? J. On 1/2/14, 7:52 , "rob.golding at astutium.com" wrote: > >> FROM AN ICANN COMPLIANCE POINT OF VIEW >> REGARDING THE LOOSING REGISTRAR: >> - the registrar sends the Auth Code to someone who is not the >> registered name holder > >IME the majority of registrars send the EPP codes to the *admin* contact *****JMB - Yes, this is what we do as well. > >> - the registrar does not even send it at all > >Are ICANN siggesting they'll start doing something about the repeat >offenders of that little 'trick' ? *****JMB - Registrars are required to send it within 5 days of request, but I agree that enforcement is problematic and inconsistent. > >> FOA related: >> - the registrar does not send the FOA >> - sends it to someone who is not a Transfer Contact > >A Transfer Contact - what's that ? I've only ever heard of Regsitrant, >Admin, Tech and Billing contacts *****JMB - IRTP defines the Transfer Contact as either the Registrant OR the Admin Contact. But as you?ve pointed out, in practical terms & thin registries, the Admin Contact = Transfer Contact. > > >> REGARDING THE GAINING REGISTRAR: >> - the registrar sends the FOA to someone who is not a Transfer Contact > >See above > >> - the registrar allows the transfer without receiving confirmation >> after sending the FOA > >How does that compare to the 'it happens anyway after 5 days if no-one >said no' policy ? > >Rob From h.raiche at internode.on.net Mon Jan 6 04:17:43 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:17:43 +1100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Fwd: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process References: <3D12C4ADDB574241958777E8FCAF60D056665BB6@uwit-mbx07.exchange.washington.edu> Message-ID: <4633A50D-F3C7-4F23-AE39-CC33192E2214@internode.on.net> Hi Everyone From out of the blue - someone who is interested in this subject from an academic perspective. I am happy to be the go-between if people are comfortable with that. Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Sarah Alkire > Date: 22 December 2013 3:54:48 PM AEDT > To: Holly Raiche , Dharma Dailey > Subject: RE: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process > > Hi Holly, > > Thanks for the explanation. I am new to all of this, but am catching up. Do you have any sense of what percentage (or what you think the percentage is) of wrongful transfers versus other scenarios? > > I do have someone that complained of losing their domain on another list (geared to women in IT) and wanted to complain to ICANN. The situation seems to be due to a squatter, and a registrant that let it be purchased by 2 businesses. The person that lost was the owner of a small business. Would you like me to connect you to her? > > At any rate, do you have a way for me to participate in gathering information for your working group, or this issue? > > Sarah > From: Holly Raiche [h.raiche at internode.on.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:24 PM > To: Dharma Dailey > Cc: Sarah Alkire > Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process > > Thanks Dharma and Hi Sarah > > Happy to have feedback on wrongful transfers. The Working Group I am in is looking at the Inter-Registrar Transfer Process - in particular looking at the variety of situations in which it occurs. The issue underlying it is to understand when the transfer is wrongful in the sense that it has happened contrary to provisions of ICANN policy and RAA requirements as against situations when the transfer has occurred for other reasons (such as a web designer not transferring control to the company for which the site as designed, or a dispute within the organisation that haws the website) > > The ultimate purpose is to understand when ICANN might provide redress for the registrant losing the name, and when the issue is outside of ICANN's remit. > > Thanks > > HOlly > > On 21/12/2013, at 2:08 AM, Dharma Dailey wrote: > >> >> Hi Holly, >> >> I'd like to introduce you to Sarah Alkire who will be representing my ALS in London. She is new to At-Large and ICANN but I think she brings a lot to the table. She's in IT at the University of Washington and is pursuing her second masters in Human Centered Design and Engineering. She has the tech background to know how the Internet works and is well along in her training in user research. Sarah's interested in working on the wrongful transfer of registration that you posted about. If you can loop her in, that would be great. >> >> Best, >> Dharma >> >> >> On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Sarah Alkire wrote: >> >>> Hi Dharma, >>> >>> This is an issue that I?d really be interested in. Thoughts? >>> >>> Sarah >>> >>> From: registration-issues-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:32 PM >>> To: registration-issues-wg at icann.org >>> Subject: [registration-issues-wg] Fwd: [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process >>> >>> Hi Everyone >>> >>> I sent this to the ALAC list, and Olivier suggested that I send it to this list as well. >>> >>> Any and all input would be welcome >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> HOlly >>> >>> (I am sending this as a member of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy D WG (a GNSO WG) >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> >>> >>> Where the ITRP D working group is up to is gathering scenarios where the registrant has lost their domain name. >>> >>> By way of background, in the earlier working group (IRTP C), the possibility of the registrant being able to access the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy dispute mechanism. But for this working group, allowing registrant access to the process is seen to be too hard. But the WG agrees that there must be redress for registrants who have (wrongly) had their domain name transferred away. >>> >>> Some of the scenarios are really not - at their base - an ICANN issue. (the admin contact quits/is fired, and then cancels the name, takes it with him/her, or the web designer gets the site up and running and then doesn't give the name to the person who hired him/her.) >>> >>> But there are many scenarios that do amount to a breach of the RAA/policy. >>> >>> The WG's view at this stage is to have the registrant be able to go to Compliance for enforcement of the transfer rules if the rules/policy has not been followed. >>> >>> What Compliance has done for the group is forward the many situations which will be considered as a breach of the RAA/policy and for which ICANN should be able to order a transfer back of the name to the registrant. >>> >>> Does anyone have any real life scenarios that I can take to the group when it reconvenes in January so that the WG can 'road test' how various scenarios would be played out - i.e., in what circumstances the registrant, with ICANN help, can recover a name transferred away from them that should not, under ICANN rules, not have been transferred. >>> >>> Holly >>> >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Mon Jan 6 13:10:07 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 07:10:07 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process In-Reply-To: <4633A50D-F3C7-4F23-AE39-CC33192E2214@internode.on.net> References: <3D12C4ADDB574241958777E8FCAF60D056665BB6@uwit-mbx07.exchange.washington.edu> <4633A50D-F3C7-4F23-AE39-CC33192E2214@internode.on.net> Message-ID: hi Holly, probably the best bet for this person is Compliance. i wish i could find a URL that summarized complaints by type, but i can?t. surely that have that data however. mikey On Jan 5, 2014, at 10:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: > Hi Everyone > > From out of the blue - someone who is interested in this subject from an academic perspective. I am happy to be the go-between if people are comfortable with that. > > Holly > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Sarah Alkire >> Date: 22 December 2013 3:54:48 PM AEDT >> To: Holly Raiche , Dharma Dailey >> Subject: RE: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process >> >> Hi Holly, >> >> Thanks for the explanation. I am new to all of this, but am catching up. Do you have any sense of what percentage (or what you think the percentage is) of wrongful transfers versus other scenarios? >> >> I do have someone that complained of losing their domain on another list (geared to women in IT) and wanted to complain to ICANN. The situation seems to be due to a squatter, and a registrant that let it be purchased by 2 businesses. The person that lost was the owner of a small business. Would you like me to connect you to her? >> >> At any rate, do you have a way for me to participate in gathering information for your working group, or this issue? >> >> Sarah >> From: Holly Raiche [h.raiche at internode.on.net] >> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:24 PM >> To: Dharma Dailey >> Cc: Sarah Alkire >> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process >> >> Thanks Dharma and Hi Sarah >> >> Happy to have feedback on wrongful transfers. The Working Group I am in is looking at the Inter-Registrar Transfer Process - in particular looking at the variety of situations in which it occurs. The issue underlying it is to understand when the transfer is wrongful in the sense that it has happened contrary to provisions of ICANN policy and RAA requirements as against situations when the transfer has occurred for other reasons (such as a web designer not transferring control to the company for which the site as designed, or a dispute within the organisation that haws the website) >> >> The ultimate purpose is to understand when ICANN might provide redress for the registrant losing the name, and when the issue is outside of ICANN's remit. >> >> Thanks >> >> HOlly >> >> On 21/12/2013, at 2:08 AM, Dharma Dailey wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Holly, >>> >>> I'd like to introduce you to Sarah Alkire who will be representing my ALS in London. She is new to At-Large and ICANN but I think she brings a lot to the table. She's in IT at the University of Washington and is pursuing her second masters in Human Centered Design and Engineering. She has the tech background to know how the Internet works and is well along in her training in user research. Sarah's interested in working on the wrongful transfer of registration that you posted about. If you can loop her in, that would be great. >>> >>> Best, >>> Dharma >>> >>> >>> On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Sarah Alkire wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Dharma, >>>> >>>> This is an issue that I?d really be interested in. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Sarah >>>> >>>> From: registration-issues-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:32 PM >>>> To: registration-issues-wg at icann.org >>>> Subject: [registration-issues-wg] Fwd: [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process >>>> >>>> Hi Everyone >>>> >>>> I sent this to the ALAC list, and Olivier suggested that I send it to this list as well. >>>> >>>> Any and all input would be welcome >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> HOlly >>>> >>>> (I am sending this as a member of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy D WG (a GNSO WG) >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Where the ITRP D working group is up to is gathering scenarios where the registrant has lost their domain name. >>>> >>>> By way of background, in the earlier working group (IRTP C), the possibility of the registrant being able to access the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy dispute mechanism. But for this working group, allowing registrant access to the process is seen to be too hard. But the WG agrees that there must be redress for registrants who have (wrongly) had their domain name transferred away. >>>> >>>> Some of the scenarios are really not - at their base - an ICANN issue. (the admin contact quits/is fired, and then cancels the name, takes it with him/her, or the web designer gets the site up and running and then doesn't give the name to the person who hired him/her.) >>>> >>>> But there are many scenarios that do amount to a breach of the RAA/policy. >>>> >>>> The WG's view at this stage is to have the registrant be able to go to Compliance for enforcement of the transfer rules if the rules/policy has not been followed. >>>> >>>> What Compliance has done for the group is forward the many situations which will be considered as a breach of the RAA/policy and for which ICANN should be able to order a transfer back of the name to the registrant. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have any real life scenarios that I can take to the group when it reconvenes in January so that the WG can 'road test' how various scenarios would be played out - i.e., in what circumstances the registrant, with ICANN help, can recover a name transferred away from them that should not, under ICANN rules, not have been transferred. >>>> >>>> Holly >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > 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 krerdman at live.com Mon Jan 6 15:56:58 2014 From: krerdman at live.com (Kevin Erdman) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:56:58 -0500 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Registrants and the transfer process In-Reply-To: References: <3D12C4ADDB574241958777E8FCAF60D056665BB6@uwit-mbx07.exchange.washington.edu> <4633A50D-F3C7-4F23-AE39-CC33192E2214@internode.on.net> Message-ID: Regrets, No power or internet. _________________________________ Kevin R Erdman cell 317.289.3934 Sent from my iPhone From julia.charvolen at icann.org Mon Jan 6 21:33:15 2014 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:33:15 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] MP3 IRTP D WG - Monday 06 January 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 13 January 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 06 January 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140106-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: James Bladel - RrSG Avri Doria ? NCSG Mikey O'Connor ? ISPCP Barbara Knight ? RySG Holly Raiche ? ALAC Chris Chaplow ? CBUC Angie Graves - CSG Apologies: Graeme Bunton - RrSG Kevin Erdman ? IPC ICANN staff: Lars Hoffmann Caitlin Tubergen Berry Cobb Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 06 January 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group on Monday 6 January 2014 Julia Charvolen:Angie Graves joined the phone bridge Julia Charvolen:Chris Chaplow joined the Adobe Connect Avri Doria:that is a frightening list of possiblity avenues Berry Cobb:What you see before you is all the compliance ticket types migrated from Internic to the Compliance Page. The Compliance team completed the full migration in Oct 2013. Avri Doria:one stop shopping for redress of registrant issues? Berry Cobb:@Avri, I think that was part of the idea. The primary driver was that the Compliance Team had little control in making changes to the complaint forms for acquiring more accurate and detailed ticket information. It made sense to take control, by migrating it under ICANN. Internic is not controlled by ICANN. Berry Cobb:IRTP-E? Bladel:But not really related to IRTP. It's a new animal Avri Doria:no, agree on issues report at this point. irtp-e decsion comes later, once the the issue report has done the analysis. Avri Doria:of course just saying issues report does not really resolve it, we need to frame the question properly. Avri Doria:Well part of an issue report does the analysis of whether it is in scope or not. Avri Doria:i tend to thnk it is. but the issues report would go dhole.own the rabbit Avri Doria:... down the rabbit hole . Avri Doria:ICANN has already gone beyond what was envistoned. Bladel:Hah! true that. Bladel:Sorry, have to drop. Thanks everyone! great call! Julia Charvolen:Thank you all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Jan 10 16:28:17 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:28:17 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Monday's agenda Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below the draft agenda for Monday's meeting as well as a draft summary of last week's call on Charter Question C and also a draft work plan as discussed. Best wishes, Lars 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on draft work plan (see below) 3. Discussion on draft summary on Question C (see below) 4. If time: Revision of previous discussion and draft recommendations on Charter Question B 5. Next steps / confirm next meeting ---- Draft Work Plan: The submission deadline for work documents for the Singapore meeting is Monday 3 March 2014 - this will give the Group eight more meetings, including 13 January and 3 March if a draft Initial Report is to be submitted n time for the Singapore Meeting. Considering that Charter question b (multiple transfers) and c (registrant access to TDRP) are still in need of discussion, here a proposed time table: 13 January: Discussion on Charter Question B 20 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C 27 January: Final Discussion on Charter Question B and C By the end of January a draft Initial Report circulated by Staff 03 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 10 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 17 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 24 February: Final Review of all Recommendations - as part of Draft Initial Report 03 March: Signing off on Draft Initial Report 24-27 March: ICANN Meeting Singapore: 7 April: First meting after Singapore; publication of Initial Report and open Public Comment -- Summary based on Monday's discussion of Charter Question C (Registrant access to TDRP) The Working Group discussed at length the issue of whether or not to modify the TDRP to allow for a registrant-initiated TDRP. As part of these discussions, the Working Group has drawn up a number of scenarios, in which registrants have suffered an unwanted loss of control over a domain name and for which, in the Groups' opinion, the current TDRP does not provide adequate solutions. In addition, the Working Group has also consulted with ICANN Compliance to understand better the circumstances under which Compliance can and does act based on existing TDRP provisions. In summary, the Group agrees that, as long as there is just one registrant who has a complaint concerning an inter-registrar transfer (the kind of transfer that the policy was designed for) then the current TDRP rules are sufficient and provide adequate solutions - via ICANN Compliance and/or Dispute resolution providers. The issues and scenarios that the Group has found and discussed, however, lie outside the current scope of the TDRP, because these scenarios involve two or more registrants disputing an inter-registrant transfer. It is these circumstances that require new consensus policy. However, the Group feels that the drafting of such a policy goes beyond the scope of this group and in fact beyond the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy that is the focus of this PDP. Therefore, the Working Group calls for an Issue Report with the view to creating an inter-registant transfer dispute policy. Recommendation #1 of the IRTP Part C Final Report that lays out the adoption of a change of registrant consensus policy could serve as a starting point for this undertaking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Sun Jan 12 19:00:39 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:00:39 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Fwd: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt References: Message-ID: Dear all, Forwarded on behalf of James. Best wishes Lars. Begin forwarded message: From: "James M. Bladel" > Date: 11 Jan 2014 19:11:31 EST To: Lars Hoffmann > Subject: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt (Lars, can you please forward to the IRTP list? I am unable to do so currently.) Team: The article linked below was shared in the context of a different ICANN working group, but contains an interesting example/use case of TDRP, so I thought it might be worthwhile reading for this group. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/09444625820/turns-out-city-london-police-cannot-force-domain-registrars-to-block-transfers-sites-just-because-it-says-so.shtml Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Sun Jan 12 19:26:25 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:26:25 -0600 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] A matrix -- all the scenarios, dropped into buckets -- Policy? Parties? Compliance Role? Volume? Message-ID: <7B129EA1-159B-45F6-9412-627F10D955A7@haven2.com> hi all, i walked out of our last call with an action to try to drop all our scenarios into various buckets. here?s my first try ? by no means the last, i?m sure. ;-) 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: IRTP-D TDRP Scenarios v1.xls Type: application/octet-stream Size: 46080 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vgreimann at key-systems.net Mon Jan 13 13:08:49 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:08:49 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Fwd: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52D3E561.4020303@key-systems.net> Yes, I read that with interest over the week-end. It clearly shows that the TDRP is working as it is supposed to at the moment by ensuring ICANN transfer policy is implemented correctly by registrars. It also shows that registrars have a working tool to enforce violations against other registrars. Volker > Dear all, > Forwarded on behalf of James. > Best wishes > Lars. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* "James M. Bladel" > > *Date:* 11 Jan 2014 19:11:31 EST > *To:* Lars Hoffmann > > *Subject:* *City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because > Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt* > > (/Lars, can you please forward to the IRTP list? I am unable to do so > currently.)/ > > Team: > > The article linked below was shared in the context of a different > ICANN working group, but contains an interesting example/use case of > TDRP, so I thought it might be worthwhile reading for this group. > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/09444625820/turns-out-city-london-police-cannot-force-domain-registrars-to-block-transfers-sites-just-because-it-says-so.shtml > > > Thank you-- > > J. > > Sent from my iPad. -- 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 kdorrain at adrforum.com Mon Jan 13 14:47:41 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:47:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Fwd: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt In-Reply-To: <52D3E561.4020303@key-systems.net> References: <52D3E561.4020303@key-systems.net> Message-ID: Thanks. I was hoping to discuss this case myself today, now that I can discuss it. Kristine From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 7:09 AM To: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Fwd: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt Yes, I read that with interest over the week-end. It clearly shows that the TDRP is working as it is supposed to at the moment by ensuring ICANN transfer policy is implemented correctly by registrars. It also shows that registrars have a working tool to enforce violations against other registrars. Volker Dear all, Forwarded on behalf of James. Best wishes Lars. Begin forwarded message: From: "James M. Bladel" > Date: 11 Jan 2014 19:11:31 EST To: Lars Hoffmann > Subject: City Of London Police Cannot Seize Domains Just Because Hollywood Says The Websites Are Infringers | Techdirt (Lars, can you please forward to the IRTP list? I am unable to do so currently.) Team: The article linked below was shared in the context of a different ICANN working group, but contains an interesting example/use case of TDRP, so I thought it might be worthwhile reading for this group. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/09444625820/turns-out-city-london-police-cannot-force-domain-registrars-to-block-transfers-sites-just-because-it-says-so.shtml Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad. -- 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 vgreimann at key-systems.net Mon Jan 13 17:55:55 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:55:55 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Off the cuff draft: Message-ID: <52D428AB.9010208@key-systems.net> Very rough first draft for further discussion.... /"Upon receiving a notification from the Losing Registrar of a previous transfer of a domain name of that transfer having occurred either without the knowledge and permission of an earlier Registered Name Holder or in violation of the IRTP, the Registrar of Record shall lock the domain name against modifications or transfers. Registrar shall remove the lock after 21 calendar days unless he receives a notification that court proceedings against the party that initiated the transfer have been initiated, in which case the lock shall be removed only after the proceedings have concluded.//"/ Locking would naturally be interpreted in the context of the Lock-PDP. The notification of initiation of court proceedings would have to have the same requirements as the notifications of the registrant that lost a UDRP. The "party that initiated the transfer" would probably have to be refined, not happy with that term. Naturally, we would also have to amend the ICANN transfer policy to allow for a denial of a transfer in case of a claim of unauthorized prior transfer. -- 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 julia.charvolen at icann.org Mon Jan 13 20:26:50 2014 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:26:50 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 13 January 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 20 January 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 13 January 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140113-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan 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 Holly Raiche ? ALAC Chris Chaplow ? CBUC Rob Golding ? RrSG Paul Diaz ? RySG Bartlett Morgan ? NCUC Kristina Dorrain ? NAF Volker Greimann ? RrSG Apologies: James Bladel - RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Caitlin Tubergen Berry Cobb Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 13 January 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group on Monday 13 January 2014 Volker Greimann:no audio bridge this time? Julia Charvolen:I am setting audio bridge, it should be on in a few minutes Julia Charvolen:Audio is on in the Adobe Connect Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):waves :) Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):& happy-new-year Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):it was 30+ at night when I was in Miami a few years ago - as a Brit i gelt i was melting into the pavement walking back to the hotel Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):we are used to weather - the cold, wet, windy miserable type - i.e. 'proper' weather :) Volker Greimann:we have not dropped below 0 C the last ew days either. pretty warm here Graeme Bunton:i'm here, but i've been on vacation for three weeks so I can barely remember what i do Graeme Bunton:thank you mikey Avri Doria:for some people, like the local garbage people, thoday is a holiday. Julia Charvolen:Chris Chaplow joined the Adobe Connect Barbara Knight-RySG:Hello all. I just joined. Sorry to be late. Julia Charvolen:Barbara Knight joined the Adobe Connect Avri Doria:my only issue is wording such as 'final disdiscussion' Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):did we 'finalise' the question b issue over multiple transfers ? Lars Hoffmann:@rob: no not yet. it was one of the issue that was still part of the workplan. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):ok Marika Konings:It might be helpful for this WG to work out those use cases so it will be easier to identify whether or not these are covered under the implementation of IRTP Part C Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):agreed about the no to registrant starting it Lars Hoffmann:Current Statut of Limitation: Lars Hoffmann:2.3 Statute of LimitationsA dispute must be filed no later than six (6) months after the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy. In the case where a Registrar of Record alleges that a transfer was in violation of this Policy, the date the transfer was completed shall be deemed the date in which the "alleged violation" took place. In the case where a Gaining Registrar alleges that a transfer should have taken place, the date in which the NACK (as defined below) was received by the Registry, shall be deemed the date in which the "alleged violation" took place. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):yes, I tend to reg and renew in 5 year periods, but log in to my registrar accounts relatively regularlyso would see the domain as missing Volker Greimann:sorry, whare are we right now? Volker Greimann:ok, thx Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):TDRP is for registrars to resolve disputes, not registrants Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):i.e. we 'nak'd' this transfer request but you processed it anyway type complaints Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):yes, it does work for that (its the only time in umpteen years we've ever had to think about it Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):everything else has cenetered around registranst and admin contacts disagreeing over transfers or designers holding domains to ransom or similar Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):shoudl possibly be *original* registrar of record and *initial* gaining registrar Kristine Dorrain:Not ususally. Avri Doria:that is proabably a national variant. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):Not in the UK - caveat emptor - if the car is stolen no matter how many times it's changed hands, it goes back to the original owner and the peopel in the middle have to go to the courts Kristine Dorrain:Same in the US. Caveat emptor here too Holly Raiche:Yes, I was talking about the good faith principle - purchased in good faith. Holly Raiche:It may be that the courts would recognise ICANN rules on the isue but something to consider Kristine Dorrain:a multi country survey of a single legal issue is a pretty big task... Marika Konings:and not cheap ;-) Chris Chaplow:Thanks Lars Lars Hoffmann:I have to leave the call. Marika will remain on the call however. Very best, Lars Avri Doria:in the US such laws will vary by locality and state. Confiscaation is big in these parts. Avri Doria:and argumentes such as, but you should have checked. Avri Doria:if it was possible to check ND YOU DID NOT CHECK, THEN TOUGH. Volker Greimann:how far down the line do you have to check? Avri Doria:sorry about the caps. cap lock is a mistypeed a. Avri Doria:Volker, depends on the quality of the lawters arguing the case after the fact. Holly Raiche:That is question D Julia Charvolen:Thank you Graeme Bunton:thx mikey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.raiche at internode.on.net Mon Jan 13 21:53:49 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:53:49 +1100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Off the cuff draft: In-Reply-To: <52D428AB.9010208@key-systems.net> References: <52D428AB.9010208@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <63B765C2-2813-4C24-AE92-D4D202784A2E@internode.on.net> And the point I was making this morning (my time) is that if that domain name is then provided to a new registrant (who would have no way of knowing that it was the subject of a wrongful transfer) puts his/her money down and spends further money promoting that name, then there are two registrants who lose - the original (and proper) owner and the new owner. What a court may do (and this is basic equitable doctrine stuff - coming out of England into the common law world and probably further) is talk about the 'innocent third party' who put money down in good faith for something - with compensation for the loser. I'm not saying what is right or wrong here. In fact, there are two competing 'right' claims. It's just that the ICANN solution seems to be to give the name back to the original, rightful registrant. It is not clear whether a court would make the opposite call, or say that ICANN rules should prevail. No that is not an answer - it is an issue that does need some thinking through Holly On 14/01/2014, at 4:55 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: > Very rough first draft for further discussion.... > > "Upon receiving a notification from the Losing Registrar of a previous transfer of a domain name of that transfer having occurred either without the knowledge and permission of an earlier Registered Name Holder or in violation of the IRTP, the Registrar of Record shall lock the domain name against modifications or transfers. Registrar shall remove the lock after 21 calendar days unless he receives a notification that court proceedings against the party that initiated the transfer have been initiated, in which case the lock shall be removed only after the proceedings have concluded." > > Locking would naturally be interpreted in the context of the Lock-PDP. > The notification of initiation of court proceedings would have to have the same requirements as the notifications of the registrant that lost a UDRP. > The "party that initiated the transfer" would probably have to be refined, not happy with that term. > > Naturally, we would also have to amend the ICANN transfer policy to allow for a denial of a transfer in case of a claim of unauthorized prior transfer. > > > -- > 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 rob.golding at astutium.com Mon Jan 13 22:09:21 2014 From: rob.golding at astutium.com (rob.golding at astutium.com) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:09:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Off the cuff draft: In-Reply-To: <63B765C2-2813-4C24-AE92-D4D202784A2E@internode.on.net> References: <52D428AB.9010208@key-systems.net> <63B765C2-2813-4C24-AE92-D4D202784A2E@internode.on.net> Message-ID: > is talk about the 'innocent third party' who put > money down in good faith for something - with compensation for the > loser. The 3rd-party would have recourse to claim from whomever they paid - you can't legitimise the purchase of 'stolen' goods through an 'innocent 3rd party' Rob From h.raiche at internode.on.net Tue Jan 14 04:43:03 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:43:03 +1100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Off the cuff draft: In-Reply-To: References: <52D428AB.9010208@key-systems.net> <63B765C2-2813-4C24-AE92-D4D202784A2E@internode.on.net> Message-ID: <9EB05CC1-91FE-45C6-B8F8-643FE7CEDBF3@internode.on.net> Normally, I would never quote from Google on matters of law, but it's a lot easier than copying text from text books. So the concept of bona fide purchasers for value without notice is defined below - and it gives the BFP (for value without notice) the goods as against the former owner. But you are correct in saying that there is still a claim against the person who fraudulently sold the property. So the question is then what is meant by 'without notice' and what reasonable steps should such purchaser have taken so that they can be said to be 'without notice'. All good fun, reallly Holly A bona fide purchaser (BFP) ? referred to more completely as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice ? is a term used in the law of real property and personal property to refer to an innocent party who purchases property without notice of any other party's claim to the title of that property. A BFP must purchase for value, meaning that he or she must pay for the property rather than simply be the beneficiary of a gift. Even when a party fraudulently conveys property to a BFP (for example, by selling to the BFP property that has already been conveyed to someone else), that BFP will, depending on the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, take good (valid) title to the property despite the competing claims of the other party. As such, recording one's interest protects an owner from losing that interest to a subsequent buyer who qualifies as a BFP. Moreover, some jurisdictions (so-called "race-notice" jurisdictions) require the BFP himself or herself to record in order to enforce his or her rights. In any case, parties with a claim to ownership in the property will retain a cause of action (a right to sue) against the party who made the fraudulent conveyance. A BFP will not be bound by equitable interests of which he/she does not have actual or imputed notice, as long as he/she has made "such inspections as ought reasonably to have been made".[1] BFPs are also sometimes referred to as "Equity's Darling". However, as Jeffrey Hackney has pointed out,[2] the title is somewhat misleading; in cases where legal title is passed to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, it is not so much that equity has any great affection for the purchaser - it is simply that equity refuses to intervene to preserve any rights held by the former beneficial owner of the property. The relationship between the courts of equity and the BFP are better characterised as benign neglect. However, equity still undoubtedly recognises the right of the beneficial owner to claim against the former legal owner where the sale was improper. In the United States, the patent law codifies the bona fide purchaser rule, 35 U.S.C. ? 261. Unlike the common law, the statute cuts off both equitable and legal claims to the title. On 14/01/2014, at 9:09 AM, rob.golding at astutium.com wrote: > >> is talk about the 'innocent third party' who put >> money down in good faith for something - with compensation for the >> loser. > > The 3rd-party would have recourse to claim from whomever they paid > - you can't legitimise the purchase of 'stolen' goods through an 'innocent 3rd party' > > Rob > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vgreimann at key-systems.net Tue Jan 14 15:20:48 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:20:48 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Off the cuff draft: In-Reply-To: <63B765C2-2813-4C24-AE92-D4D202784A2E@internode.on.net> References: <52D428AB.9010208@key-systems.net> <63B765C2-2813-4C24-AE92-D4D202784A2E@internode.on.net> Message-ID: <52D555D0.7050702@key-systems.net> Hi Holly, yes, this is my worry as well. Therefore I think requiring a lock would be the best way to preserve the status quo until a legal decision can be reached. It seems like a better solution than to always transfer back, no questions asked... Volker Am 13.01.2014 22:53, schrieb Holly Raiche: > And the point I was making this morning (my time) is that if that > domain name is then provided to a new registrant (who would have no > way of knowing that it was the subject of a wrongful transfer) puts > his/her money down and spends further money promoting that name, then > there are two registrants who lose - the original (and proper) owner > and the new owner. What a court may do (and this is basic equitable > doctrine stuff - coming out of England into the common law world and > probably further) is talk about the 'innocent third party' who put > money down in good faith for something - with compensation for the loser. > > I'm not saying what is right or wrong here. In fact, there are two > competing 'right' claims. It's just that the ICANN solution seems to > be to give the name back to the original, rightful registrant. It is > not clear whether a court would make the opposite call, or say that > ICANN rules should prevail. > > No that is not an answer - it is an issue that does need some thinking > through > > Holly > > > On 14/01/2014, at 4:55 AM, Volker Greimann wrote: > >> Very rough first draft for further discussion.... >> >> /"Upon receiving a notification from the Losing Registrar of a >> previous transfer of a domain name of that transfer having occurred >> either without the knowledge and permission of an earlier Registered >> Name Holder or in violation of the IRTP, the Registrar of Record >> shall lock the domain name against modifications or transfers. >> Registrar shall remove the lock after 21 calendar days unless he >> receives a notification that court proceedings against the party that >> initiated the transfer have been initiated, in which case the lock >> shall be removed only after the proceedings have concluded.//"/ >> >> Locking would naturally be interpreted in the context of the Lock-PDP. >> The notification of initiation of court proceedings would have to >> have the same requirements as the notifications of the registrant >> that lost a UDRP. >> The "party that initiated the transfer" would probably have to be >> refined, not happy with that term. >> >> Naturally, we would also have to amend the ICANN transfer policy to >> allow for a denial of a transfer in case of a claim of unauthorized >> prior transfer. >> >> >> -- >> 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 vgreimann at key-systems.net Tue Jan 14 15:21:19 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:21:19 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Off the cuff draft: In-Reply-To: References: <52D428AB.9010208@key-systems.net> <63B765C2-2813-4C24-AE92-D4D202784A2E@internode.on.net> Message-ID: <52D555EF.4050602@key-systems.net> Ah, but then a domain name is not "goods". It is a title, a right, a license even, but not a physical good. Volker > >> is talk about the 'innocent third party' who put >> money down in good faith for something - with compensation for the >> loser. > > The 3rd-party would have recourse to claim from whomever they paid > - you can't legitimise the purchase of 'stolen' goods through an > 'innocent 3rd party' > > Rob > From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Jan 20 14:50:23 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:50:23 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Draft Recommendations and Agenda for Today's Call Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached a new version of the Draft Recommendations, including text for Charter questions B and C. Looking forward to the Group's discussion on the call later on. Speaking of, here is the proposed draft agenda: 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates 2. Discussion on draft Recommendation Charter Question B 3. Discussion on draft Recommendation Charter Question C 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting Best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Recommendationsv10.doc Type: application/msword Size: 88576 bytes Desc: Recommendationsv10.doc URL: From julia.charvolen at icann.org Mon Jan 20 18:11:29 2014 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:11:29 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] MP3 IRTP D call - Monday 20 January 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 27 January 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 20 January 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140120-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Mikey O'Connor ? ISPCP Holly Raiche ? ALAC Volker Greimann ? RrSG James Bladel ? RrSG Angie Graves - CBUC Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Kristine Dorrain ? NAF Avri Doria ? NCSG Chris Chaplow ? CBUC Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 20 January 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group meeting, Monday 20 January 2014 Graeme Bunton:small group today Mike O'Connor:light at the end of the tunnel Julia Charvolen:Thank you noted Julia Charvolen:Chris Chaplow joined the Adobe Connect and phone bridge Chris Chaplow:Thanks Julia, apologies to join late Volker Greimann:Marl? Graeme Bunton:ahahahahah Volker Greimann:can you hear me? Volker Greimann:new pc... Julia Charvolen:@ Volker - Your microphone is connected Volker Greimann:i know, but no sound is coming Julia Charvolen:We can hear you Volker Bladel:very faint. Volker Greimann:it is the same microphone Volker Greimann:^_^ Holly Raiche:That was the issue we discussed on the last call Holly Raiche:Yes please Julia Charvolen:Thank you all Graeme Bunton:thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Jan 27 13:36:56 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:36:56 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Draft Initial Report Message-ID: Dear all, In preparation for today's call, please find attached the first draft of the Initial Report. Best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Initial Report V1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 539648 bytes Desc: Draft Initial Report V1.doc URL: From vgreimann at key-systems.net Mon Jan 27 16:01:15 2014 From: vgreimann at key-systems.net (Volker Greimann) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:01:15 +0100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language Message-ID: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> 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 avri at acm.org Mon Jan 27 21:03:43 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:03:43 -0500 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> References: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> Message-ID: <52E6C9AF.8090102@acm.org> Hi, I would also look for notice of ombudsman process in the condition for maintaining the Register Lock. I think anywhere we indicate possible legal process, we should also include possible ombudsman process - the low cal court-substitue avri On 27-Jan-14 11:01, 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. > > > From kdorrain at adrforum.com Mon Jan 27 21:08:16 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:08:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: <52E6C9AF.8090102@acm.org> References: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> <52E6C9AF.8090102@acm.org> Message-ID: Currently, Compliance handles specific instances of failing to lock. They have a little tool on their site. In my chats with the Ombudsman, these are not the types of disputes he's installed to examine. In my opinion, these do not rise to some formal investigation and lengthy letter writing process. Compliance's tool is pretty quick and their 3-2-1 process has finally developed some refinement. I think we need to defer to the established processes. The Ombudsman is for grievances not contractual non-compliance. Just my thoughts... Kristine -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:04 PM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language Hi, I would also look for notice of ombudsman process in the condition for maintaining the Register Lock. I think anywhere we indicate possible legal process, we should also include possible ombudsman process - the low cal court-substitue avri On 27-Jan-14 11:01, 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. > > > From avri at acm.org Mon Jan 27 21:39:25 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:39:25 -0500 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: References: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> <52E6C9AF.8090102@acm.org> Message-ID: <52E6D20D.2090201@acm.org> Hi, The duties of the ombudsman are under negotiation. I am not suggesting we add any ombudsman responsibility, but rather that whatever the case, if whenever is involved then it counts. This may be perhaps because compliance has not been forthcoming or because it is sometimes difficult to discern between a grievance and a well formed compliance case. avri On 27-Jan-14 16:08, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: > > Currently, Compliance handles specific instances of failing to lock. They have a little tool on their site. > > In my chats with the Ombudsman, these are not the types of disputes he's installed to examine. > > In my opinion, these do not rise to some formal investigation and lengthy letter writing process. Compliance's tool is pretty quick and their 3-2-1 process has finally developed some refinement. I think we need to defer to the established processes. > > The Ombudsman is for grievances not contractual non-compliance. > > Just my thoughts... > > Kristine > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:04 PM > To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language > > > > Hi, > > I would also look for notice of ombudsman process in the condition for maintaining the Register Lock. > > I think anywhere we indicate possible legal process, we should also include possible ombudsman process - the low cal court-substitue > > avri > > On 27-Jan-14 11:01, 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. >> >> >> > > > From avri at acm.org Mon Jan 27 22:02:56 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:02:56 -0500 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: <52E6D20D.2090201@acm.org> References: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> <52E6C9AF.8090102@acm.org> <52E6D20D.2090201@acm.org> Message-ID: <52E6D790.40408@acm.org> On 27-Jan-14 16:39, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > The duties of the ombudsman are under negotiation. This is perhaps a slight exaggeration. There is a recommendation from ATRT that the ombudsman role be negotiated. However, that doesn't change my argument. But figured I should fess to the exaggeration. > I am not suggesting > we add any ombudsman responsibility, but rather that whatever the case, > if whenever is involved then it counts. This may be perhaps because > compliance has not been forthcoming or because it is sometimes difficult > to discern between a grievance and a well formed compliance case. > > avri > > > On 27-Jan-14 16:08, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: >> >> Currently, Compliance handles specific instances of failing to lock. >> They have a little tool on their site. >> >> In my chats with the Ombudsman, these are not the types of disputes >> he's installed to examine. >> >> In my opinion, these do not rise to some formal investigation and >> lengthy letter writing process. Compliance's tool is pretty quick and >> their 3-2-1 process has finally developed some refinement. I think we >> need to defer to the established processes. >> >> The Ombudsman is for grievances not contractual non-compliance. >> >> Just my thoughts... >> >> Kristine >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:04 PM >> To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I would also look for notice of ombudsman process in the condition for >> maintaining the Register Lock. >> >> I think anywhere we indicate possible legal process, we should also >> include possible ombudsman process - the low cal court-substitue >> >> avri >> >> On 27-Jan-14 11:01, 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From julia.charvolen at icann.org Mon Jan 27 23:17:54 2014 From: julia.charvolen at icann.org (Julia Charvolen) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:17:54 -0800 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] MP3 IRTP D - Monday 27 January 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held on Monday 03 February 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 27 January 2014 at 16:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140127-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Mikey O'Connor ? ISPCP Holly Raiche ? ALAC Volker Greimann ? RrSG James Bladel ? RrSG Angie Graves - CBUC Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Kristine Dorrain ? NAF Avri Doria ? NCSG Chris Chaplow ? CBUC Kevin Erdman ? IPC Barbara Knight - RySG Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG Marika Konings ICANN staff: Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Julia Charvolen ** 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, Julia Charvolen Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 27 January 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group meeting, Monday 27 January 2014 Volker Greimann:Herr me? Lars Hoffmann:I am not dialed in yet .... Julia Charvolen:Hello Volker, are you trying to speak in AC? Bladel:Herr Greimann. Bladel:Excelsior! Graeme Bunton:hoot hoot, holler holler Berry Cobb:This is for you JB: http://www.dupontregistry.com/autos/search/DRauSearchDetails.aspx?itemid=1112521#.T5yeUvFU2xE.facebook Volker Greimann:"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." Berry Cobb::-) Julia Charvolen:Chris Chaplow joined the Adobe Connect Julia Charvolen:and phone bridge Kristine Dorrain:I'm missing most of the audio...going to try to re-connect. Julia Charvolen:Avri Doria joined the Adobe Connect Volker Greimann:Berry, is she really that small? Julia Charvolen:@ Kristine - Please let me know if you want a dial out Avri Doria:yeah, but not hearing anything so i guess i better go find a phone. Avri Doria:oh hearing now. Avri Doria:and now, not. Mike O'Connor:ii'll break in as soon as this thought gets finished. Avri Doria:and again. Avri Doria:i can again Julia Charvolen:Let me check with operator Graeme Bunton:working fine for me Avri Doria:working now. Bladel:Pause to allow folks to dial in? Avri Doria:move on Chris Chaplow:Just checked and audio sound good to me Barbara Knight-RySG:I vote for dialing into the bridge as that seems to be working Avri Doria:we can dial in once we give up on technology. we dont need a break, but thanks for offering. Avri Doria:at least i dont need a break. Bladel:Dialing in is just a different flavor of technology. :) Kristine Dorrain:I will dial in, but the video is also continually trying to reconnect...not sure if that's just me. Avri Doria:it is so antique it is hard to think of it as tech. Mike O'Connor:weird. no video stuff going on here. Avri Doria:and people working i=on internet tech having to rely on telecomms is pathetic. Bladel:Agree. We s hould switch to Google Hangouts? Kristine Dorrain:+1 Kristine Dorrain:At this moment, i'm hearing you all ok...it appears my audio "may" be connected now...we'll see Kristine Dorrain:Interestingly, we "accidentally" published the last one. Kevin Erdman:Then we better put those provisions in writing Volker Greimann:same issue again? Mike O'Connor:too loud -- lots of distortion Holly Raiche:Just what I was thinking Graeme Bunton:super loud! Avri Doria:and REALY LOUD Graeme Bunton:ULTRA-VOLKER SPEAKS Mike O'Connor:here's their James/Volker's language again Mike O'Connor:"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." Mike O'Connor:"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. Mike O'Connor: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. Mike O'Connor: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." Volker Greimann:This needs tuning, the draft was just intended as a basis for discussion Avri Doria:i am comfortable as long as it is reversable Avri Doria:and ombudsman Kristine Dorrain:I don't think the ombudsman intervenes here. We've talked. Graeme Bunton:thx Julia Charvolen:Thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.raiche at internode.on.net Tue Jan 28 17:13:13 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 04:13:13 +1100 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language In-Reply-To: <52E6D790.40408@acm.org> References: <52E682CB.3040500@key-systems.net> <52E6C9AF.8090102@acm.org> <52E6D20D.2090201@acm.org> <52E6D790.40408@acm.org> Message-ID: <8A675A58-E845-4B91-8B32-22FEF98BEE83@internode.on.net> I am not sure this matters. Currently, close to 80% of the complaints the ICANN Ombudsman receives are out of his jurisdiction. As long as he can provide advice to the complainant as to where they can take their grievance, it should not matter where someone goes first. The real issue is having enough comprehensible information on the ICANN website so that people know what the process is and where they can go - something that has been previously discussed. The next issue is being very clear as to what is within Compliance's remit and what isn't. Holly On 28/01/2014, at 9:02 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 27-Jan-14 16:39, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The duties of the ombudsman are under negotiation. > > This is perhaps a slight exaggeration. There is a recommendation from ATRT that the ombudsman role be negotiated. > > However, that doesn't change my argument. But figured I should fess to the exaggeration. > >> I am not suggesting >> we add any ombudsman responsibility, but rather that whatever the case, >> if whenever is involved then it counts. This may be perhaps because >> compliance has not been forthcoming or because it is sometimes difficult >> to discern between a grievance and a well formed compliance case. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 27-Jan-14 16:08, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: >>> >>> Currently, Compliance handles specific instances of failing to lock. >>> They have a little tool on their site. >>> >>> In my chats with the Ombudsman, these are not the types of disputes >>> he's installed to examine. >>> >>> In my opinion, these do not rise to some formal investigation and >>> lengthy letter writing process. Compliance's tool is pretty quick and >>> their 3-2-1 process has finally developed some refinement. I think we >>> need to defer to the established processes. >>> >>> The Ombudsman is for grievances not contractual non-compliance. >>> >>> Just my thoughts... >>> >>> Kristine >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] >>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:04 PM >>> To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] First draft on Locking Language >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would also look for notice of ombudsman process in the condition for >>> maintaining the Register Lock. >>> >>> I think anywhere we indicate possible legal process, we should also >>> include possible ombudsman process - the low cal court-substitue >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 27-Jan-14 11:01, 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>