From terri.agnew at icann.org Tue Jul 1 13:53:56 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 06:53:56 -0700 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] REMINDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session Message-ID: Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 3 July at 20.00 UTC Thursday 7 August at 12.00 UTC Thursday 4 September at 20.00 UTC Thursday 2 October at 12.00 UTC Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html. If you are interested to join the next meeting on 3 July or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( gnso-secs at icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine & Terri Agnew GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Jul 7 04:25:27 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 21:25:27 -0700 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review Message-ID: Dear all, Apologies for the late notice ? please find below the agenda for today?s IRTP Part D Call. Best wishes, Lars Proposed Draft Agenda: IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - Monday 07 July 2014 ? 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Finalising Recommendation #14 (FOAs) 3. Reviewing timetable (atttached) 4. Next steps/Confirming next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Work Plan for IRTP Part D PDP Working Group to submit Final Report post London[3].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 75682 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Jul 7 14:33:23 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 07:33:23 -0700 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] GNSO Working Group Calendar Invitations Message-ID: Dear all, The GNSO Secretariat is happy to announce that they are now going to add calendar invitations to the usual Working Group invitation emails. Therefore, from today onwards, along with the regular email invitation, there will be a calendar invitation attached to the email. This invitation should adapt to all formats of email calendar. Should you wish to test this feature, please proceed as below: 1- Open the attachment and accept the invitation. Please do NOT send the reply back to the sender. 2- Please check calendar invite is in correct slot according to your individual calendar time zone 3- Please email gnso-secs at icann.org with any worry or concern you may have with this feature. We will be sending out emails in a few weeks' time to get member feedback. Thank you! Nathalie GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Jul 7 17:25:30 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:25:30 -0700 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 07 July 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held 14 July 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 07 July 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140707-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight ? RySG James Bladel - RrSG Kristine Dorrian ? National Arbitration Forum Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Angie Graves ? BC Holly Raiche ? ALAC Volker Greimann ? RrSG Rob Golding - RrSG Kevin Erdman ? IPC Avri Doria ? NCSG Bob Mountain ? RrSG Arthur Zonnenberg ? RrSG Bartlett Morgan ? NCUC Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 07 July 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP WG meeting, Monday 7 July 2014 Terri Agnew:Bob Mountain and Volker Greimann has joined Bob Mountain:Good morning Volker Greimann:good afternoon Terri Agnew:Arthur Zonnenberg has joined audio Graeme:quiet for me too, bob Angie Graves:Tought to hear you Bob Mountain:Using a new computer so challenged will dial in Terri Agnew:Rob Golding has joined Bob Mountain:not yet Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):How are they getting the EPP ? Terri Agnew:Bartlett Morgan has joined Bartlett Morgan:Hello all. Apologies for being late; another meeting ran over Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):"for the maority of inter-registrar transfers" perhaps ? Terri Agnew:Kristine Dorrain has joined Kristine Dorrain:So sorry I Kristine Dorrain:Monday after a holiday is nuts. :) Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):perhaps we need *a* form of authority rather than just teh current email 'standard' form of authority ? Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):i.e as long as you can prove it ? Berry Cobb:Volker, where did you see the language in the IRTP? Berry Cobb:Link? Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):unnecessary delay ? Berry Cobb:Got it now. Thx Berry Cobb:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-transfers-2014-07-02-en Avri Doria:bye Bartlett Morgan:bye Bob Mountain:Thanks James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Jul 11 08:16:20 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:16:20 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Final Report Recommendations Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached a first red-line version of the recommendation for the Final Report. In light of Monday?s agenda (see below) it would be very useful if you could familiarise yourself with the changes as we will start working on determining consensus level on at least some of these. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars Proposed Draft Agenda IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 14 July 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Review redline-version of recommendations and determining consensus level 3. Next steps/Confirming next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_shortV2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 166400 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From azonnenberg at hostnet.nl Mon Jul 14 14:56:10 2014 From: azonnenberg at hostnet.nl (Arthur Zonnenberg) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:56:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Final Report Recommendations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <827073ce-f18e-4f8a-878d-b9fdcd6e552d@mailzim.hostnet.nl> Dear all, As promised, my reactions to this final report as well as previous meetings' comments. Due to a recent internal physical transfer of our office, I was delayed in getting these to you. See you all soon in the meeting. charter question C cost increase is handled from the point of view of the registries, but not from the point of view of the RNH, what the BC intended. Perhaps ICANN compliance could be a more accessible and affordable dispute resolution for registered name holders, where - as noted - trademark knowledge and such legal background is not a priori necessary to resolve a dispute. IF such legal knowledge is deemed necessary, ICANN compliance can still give a 'no verdict' and refer the complainant to legal measures. This would also be in line with ICANN explaining the TDRP on its website - they could offer a channel to handle such disputes. charter question D Instead of adding explanations as best practice, the explanation of TDRP could be added to a FOC versus an FOA. That way you always have the information as a former registered name holder. charter question F useful for auditing. It is however not likely to prevent fraudulent transfers. Any hacker that has access to the auth code, generally at the account level or user level, will be like to have access to (updating) the e-mail address of the registered name holder. Rendering the FOA moot. For auditing purpose the FOA could be changed to a Form of Confirmation sent to the previous registered name holder. The reason why this is important is because this 'extraneous step' is a likely cause of a higher gTLD transfer fail rate, together with it's depencies on the WHOIS as well as the EPP status: clientTransferProhibited. Our Hostnet data indicates, that, based on 3 million .com transfers per year and a current 25% fail rate, 1 million .com transfers are not transferred each year despite the registered name holder express wish to do so. ccTLD transfer data imply that we can reduce this to 10% or less, which would mean 600.000 more successfull transfers leaving 400.000 failed ones, where registered name holder truly changed their mind instead of where they gave up. The question is if the WG considers this a valid reason to change the FOA to a confirming non-blocking e-mail (Form Of Confirmation)? In reaction to comments made by : Berry Cobb - it is important to note that the FOA / auth-code / clientTransferProhibited combination does not, in security terms, constitute a 'true' multi-factor authentication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentication_factor#Factors_and_identity This is because all 3 elements are based on what a user knows, not what a user has (smartphone with software key or a hardware token), nor what a user is or does (finger print, retinal pattern, DNA, hand written signature). In reality, all 3 factors are often accessed by the same customer portal registrars offer to end users or resellers. If a portal is not offered, expiring the end user contract for the domain name can lead to a combined unlock + distribution of authcode + update of e-mail admin-c, defeating any claim to multi-factor security. This may be too high for ICANN to aim for, if required a solution could be the signature or a open source authenticator as for example implemented by dns.be : http://www.dnsbelgium.be/en/help-page-2-step-verification Volker Greimann - the FOA does not prove with certainty who is authorizing the transfer. An IP address does not uniquely identify a RNH. The only thing we know about a FOA is to which e-mail address it was sent. Preferably for inter-registrar, but also inter-registrant transfers, the *previous* registered name holder is informed. This can also satisfy the audit requirements. The new registered name holder is required to verify the e-mail address as you have mentioned. James Bladel - First of all thanks for asking about the suggestion of changing the FOA to your godaddy compliance department. The reseller becoming registrar can temporarily set itself as administrative contact, to grant permission on behalf of the RNH for any bulk transfer. This can and is frequently done. Legally, the end user contract is unaffected by which supplier is chosen. While the RAA does require us to inform the registrant of their current registrar, it does not force us to include the current registrar in the end user agreement. In other words even for ICANN a change of registrar does not constitute a change in the contract with the registered name holder. At the same time, one can safely assume a gaining registrar will only submit a transfer once it has or has been reasonably satisfied its terms & conditions have been accepted. Furthermore, combining multiple FOA / FOC transfer e-mails into a single e-mail, would already be allowed under current policy in terms of compliance. Text messages would give an alternative, but not improve the likelihood of a RNH agreeing. The point is that many RNH's currently give up is what we're noticing in practice. A resulting point of that is that I'm not trying to prevent harm, I'm trying to prevent unnecessary blocking of RNH's legitimate wish to transfer their domains. Rob Golding - your opinions describes exactly the agreement on behalf of the new registered name holder which can safely be assumed to be had. I would suggest we aim to simplify the IRTP where possible, while not sacrificing any audit power the policy currently gives. Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Arthur Zonnenberg Product Manager azonnenberg at hostnet.nl http://www.hostnet.nl Tel: +31.207500834 Fax: +31.207500825 Hostnet bv De Ruijterkade 6 1013 AA Amsterdam NL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lars Hoffmann" To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:16:20 AM Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Final Report Recommendations Dear all, Please find attached a first red-line version of the recommendation for the Final Report. In light of Monday?s agenda (see below) it would be very useful if you could familiarise yourself with the changes as we will start working on determining consensus level on at least some of these. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars Proposed Draft Agenda I RTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 14 July 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Review redline-version of recommendations and determining consensus level 3. Next steps/Confirming next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Jul 14 20:44:26 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:44:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 14 July 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held 21 July 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 14 July 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140714-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight ? RySG James Bladel - RrSG Kristine Dorrian ? National Arbitration Forum Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Angie Graves ? BC Holly Raiche ? ALAC Volker Greimann ? RrSG Rob Golding - RrSG Kevin Erdman ? IPC Avri Doria ? NCSG Bob Mountain ? RrSG Arthur Zonnenberg ? RrSG Chris Chaplow ? CBUC Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 14 July 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 14 July 2014 Terri Agnew:Welcome Arthur Zonnenberg Terri Agnew:Kevin Erdman and Bob Mounatin has joined Terri Agnew:Avri Doria has joined Arthur Zonnenberg:hi terri and group. Barbara Knight:I would support a go forward process for this requirement as well. Holly Raiche:Only going forward was my assumption Arthur Zonnenberg:I sent an email to the mailing list with feedback on the current final report as well as responses to comments made last week Avri Doria:While i can see the history being useful, the work required seem sunproportionate to the value. I agree going forward is sufficinet. Arthur Zonnenberg:go ahead on charter questions A and B Terri Agnew:As a reminder, on telephone you can press *6 to mute or *6 to unmute Graeme Bunton:you're very quiet kevin Volker Greimann:kevin, I cannot hear a word Holly Raiche:I like the term 'immediately prior' as clearer Arthur Zonnenberg:agreement with James that that would be less ambiguous than originaliteit Arthur Zonnenberg:(Apple charg?s all my text...) Graeme Bunton:duplicative! Graeme Bunton:(not saying it is, enjoying the word) Arthur Zonnenberg:THE current irtp already requires locking or THE udrp does Arthur Zonnenberg:agree to include lock Marika Konings:It is currently out for public comment, if I am not mistaken. Marika Konings:the implementation plan, that is... Marika Konings:It closes on 18 July (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/udrp-rules-proposed-2014-05-19-en) Marika Konings:"The current plan is to announce implementation in November or December with a six-month implementation deadline." Marika Konings::-) Terri Agnew:Chris Chaplow has joined Chris Chaplow:thanks, awaiting dial in operator now Terri Agnew:Hi Chris, I see you have joined audio Chris Chaplow:yes all fine, thanks, apologies for v late Terri Agnew:Rob Golding has joined Arthur Zonnenberg:is an official disputen resolution provider necessary for a non legal domain procedure? Arthur Zonnenberg:holly even if you clarify it they are unlikely to pay the fee.. Holly Raiche:.I undestand that. The purpose of more clarity is to at least let the registrant know when they can approach ICANN and when not Arthur Zonnenberg:agree holly :) Holly Raiche:In the London meeting we did discuss hat we need to at least review te implication of costs Holly Raiche:Barbara's point was taken into account in London - it actually costs! Arthur Zonnenberg:I think the drp should be a second option not a frist Arthur Zonnenberg:first Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Fair point...you're saying that the DRP is not the only option under the enhanced IRTP and compliance role.? Berry Cobb:There is a 1st level, yes? The Rt working with their respective Rr to resolve the issue, prior to any TDRP being initiatied? Arthur Zonnenberg:must agree with James, but then registrar outreach must be informed to rnh more clearly Arthur Zonnenberg:Kristine yes give the first verdict to icann compliance Arthur Zonnenberg:then rnh can always pay more for tdrp or court Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Aurthur, to be clear compliance doesn't have an official TDRP function. Arthur Zonnenberg:Kristine I know but often that is not required. rnh just wants their domain back. compliance could be given such official function if necessary I think Arthur Zonnenberg:icann is not the registrars nor registrars and can definitely policy registrars :) Arthur Zonnenberg:thans Lets continue next week Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):thanks james -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Thu Jul 17 14:19:26 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:19:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] updates Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the updated version ? with all agreed changes implemented and any agreed new drafts added in redline. Note that we are going to pick up on p.9 from Recommendation #8. I will send out the agenda tomorrow! Best, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_shortV3.doc Type: application/applefile Size: 447 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_shortV3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 163328 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Jul 18 13:10:36 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:10:36 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review Message-ID: Dear all, Attached again the latest version of the recommendations (same version that was sent out yesterday) - and please also see the draft agenda for Monday. Many thanks and have a good weekend! Lars Proposed Draft Agenda IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 21 July 2014, 15.00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Review redline-version of recommendations and determining consensus level 3. Next steps/Confirming next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Jul 21 21:29:13 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:29:13 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 21 July 2014 Message-ID: Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held 28 July 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 21 July 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140721-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight ? RySG James Bladel - RrSG Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Holly Raiche ? ALAC Volker Greimann ? RrSG Avri Doria ? NCSG Bob Mountain ? RrSG Arthur Zonnenberg ? RrSG Kevin Erdman ? IPC Rob Golding ? RrSG Kristine Dorrian ? National Arbitration Forum Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Amy Bivins Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 21 July 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 21 July 2014 Bladel:Dialing in... Terri Agnew:Bob and Arthur I did include you in roll call Arthur Zonnenberg:im hearings James in echo can he turn his volume down please? Terri Agnew:Avri Doria has joined Terri Agnew:Arthur, has echo gotten better? Arthur Zonnenberg:yes it's beter now Terri Agnew:thank you Marika Konings:@Berry - correct, it didn't address that issue as far as I am aware but was brought up as part of the Issue Report in response to IRTP Part D, if I am not mistaken. Terri Agnew:Kevin Erdman has joined Arthur Zonnenberg:should not irtp-c handle its own use cases? irtp-c should not leave uncertainty... Berry Cobb:That's the conundrum. Berry Cobb:Check. Just so we modify that last phrase of the recommendation. Terri Agnew:Rob Golding has joined Graeme Bunton:/tumblweed Berry Cobb:At our next IRTP-C IRT, I will ensure that staff/IRT review these use cases.....that should help tee up the issue report. Terri Agnew:Kristine Dorrain has joined Arthur Zonnenberg:1st level support by registrars, 2nd level by icann compliance, 3rd level by tdrp provider, 4th by law? Arthur Zonnenberg:(disputes) Arthur Zonnenberg:will those icann explanations be translated in Dutch? Arthur Zonnenberg:fully agree on recommendation 15 and 16 Bob Mountain:Isn't Authorization misspelled? Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Not in the UK Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):Not in *english* :p Bob Mountain:Snobs Kristine Dorrain-NAF::) Holly Raiche:Oz spelling also uses the 's' Bob Mountain:We need a PDP on this one Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):Some form of FOA is needed, but I think that the reliance on the current 'standarised emiail' should not be the only type Arthur Zonnenberg:if they hack the registrar account they can change the email address and after processing confirm the foa. the rnh already agrees with terms and conditions via new registrar. Arthur Zonnenberg:icann compliance would still have foc for auditing. you doubt our data but did you calculate your fail rate? Volker Greimann:how is that evidence that the registrant agreed? Arthur Zonnenberg:are locking mechanisms necessary? i doubt enough has been done to accomodate end users ease of transfer. Arthur Zonnenberg:im not supporting complete elimination Arthur Zonnenberg:how is the foa evidence that the registrant agreed? Terri Agnew:As a reminder, please mute when not speaking Arthur Zonnenberg:can we please investigate fail rates? Graeme Bunton:That seems very sensible, Berry. Graeme Bunton:Happy to work with you on wording to the RRsg and data collection template Berry Cobb:Is there support by the other Registrars on this call to kick this over to the RrSG? Berry Cobb:Thank you Graeme. If this is acceptable, I can start a first draft. Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):There are registrars which are 'hard' to transfer away from Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):GD isn't one of those, so I support James earlier comments completely Arthur Zonnenberg:besides transfers failing due to transfer locks and 60 day locks Bladel:Rob - we are getting better! :) Bladel:It wasn't alwasy that clear. Arthur Zonnenberg:i agree with you Rob GD is not that hard. still every step you ask increases the fail rate is what we see in the data. Arthur Zonnenberg:transfers should be as user friendly as they can be i Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):the problems we see are Arthur Zonnenberg:i think :-) Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):user education - they dont understand all the steps Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):user incompetence - they dont complete all the steps Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):user configuration - they dont get (or mark-as-spam) the FOA Arthur Zonnenberg:yes rob but even with education, too many steps make you give up Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):as far bigger issues than registrar 'awkwardness' in enforcing policy Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I have to run....thanks all, talk to you next week! Arthur Zonnenberg:if you dont know about domains should your wish be prevented by locks or steps that dont add security Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):thansk james Avri Doria:bye, thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca Mon Jul 28 00:17:29 2014 From: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca (Alan Greenberg) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:17:29 -0400 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] FOA Message-ID: I haven't been actively participating in this WG, but have been monitoring. I understand that the issue of whether the FOA is still really needed has come up. I do have some thoughts on this. It *might* be true that the FOA is an archaic thing of the past, but we do not have any evidence of it at the moment. There have been a lot of changes with respect to inter-registrar transfers recently, and more to come. But we do not yet fully understand how these are working or will work. At the moment, transfers are still the number one complaint that Contractual Compliance receives after Whois accuracy. For the period of February-June 2014, there were 2427 transfer complaints received, totally over 13% of all registrar-related complaints logged, and almost 10 times the number of the next-highest non-Whois related complaints. Accordingly, it may well be that case that once all of the dust settles, the FOA may be seen as of minimal value. But that time is not now. The WG on Policy and Implementation is actively discussing how issues such as this one could be addressed after a PDP has completed if needed. I would suggest the IRTP-D WG flag this issue as one to be reviewed in a couple of years, and that a recommendation then be issued to consider the removal of the requirement if the evidence supports it at that time. Alan From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Jul 28 12:49:33 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:49:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] for your review Message-ID: Dear all, Apologies for the late circulation of the agenda. Please also find attached the latest redline versions of the draft recommendations. Best Lars Proposed Draft Agenda, Monday 28 July 2014, 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Finalise discussion recommendation #17 on FOAs 3. Consider expected impact of recommendations 4. Review next steps and meeting time table 5. Confirming next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_shortV4.doc Type: application/msword Size: 169984 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Jul 28 20:19:08 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:19:08 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 28 July 2014 Message-ID: <27d1ba9602514b669d62ef84b5d2c776@PMBX112-W1-CA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held in two weeks on 11 August 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 28 July 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140728-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight ? RySG James Bladel - RrSG Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Holly Raiche ? ALAC Volker Greimann ? RrSG Bob Mountain ? RrSG Arthur Zonnenberg ? RrSG Kristine Dorrian ? National Arbitration Forum Alan Greenberg-ALAC Angie Graves-BC Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG Avri Doria ? NCSG ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Lars Hoffmann Berry Cobb Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 28 July 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 28 July 2014 Terri Agnew:Welcome Arthur Zonnenberg Arthur Zonnenberg:hi Terry, waiting for coordinator on the phone... Terri Agnew:Hi Arthur I see you have joined audio portion Terri Agnew:Angie Graves has joined audio Terri Agnew:Welcome Bob Mountain Bob Mountain:Sorry to be late. Bladel:Thx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: