[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Jan 26 15:08:25 UTC 2016
Tx Mary, but I am still missing the impact of the discussion below on
our PPSAI recommendations. If I want to transfer my domain name(s) from
Registrar A to Registrar B, both with Privacy and Proxy services, and to
keep the data private as the transfer takes place (something we all
agreed should happen) -- is there a problem, a limitation, a barrier? If
so, how can we overcome it?
Best,
Kathy
On 11/25/2015 2:04 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Just a quick note for those WG members who may not be familiar with
> the IRTP, the changes to IRTP-C, or the implementation discussions –
> it may help to note the following definition for the IRTP. I believe
> that James is referring to the registrar’s discretion in determining
> whether the purported change is or is not typographical in nature (see
> in particular the words I’ve highlighted in bold and italics). This is
> illustrated by the examples given:
>
> “Material Change” */means a non-typographical correction/*. The
> following will be considered material changes:
> (i) A change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or organization
> that does not appear to be a merely a typographical correction;
> (ii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s name or
> organization that is accompanied by a change of address or phone number;
> (iii) Any change to the Registered Name Holder’s email address.
>
> The point about having discretion on this matter can be significant
> because, under the Policy, a Material Change to a registrant’s name,
> organizational address or email address _will_ be considered a Change
> of Registrant and thus trigger the 60-day lock. Hence,
> disabling/removal of a proxy service would trigger a lock – although
> the current Policy contemplates another possible instance of registrar
> discretion in such instances, i.e. a registrar has the discretion
> (“may”) to permit the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the lock
> _prior_ to the Change of Registrant request.
>
> I’m far from an expert on the IRTP, but hopefully the above helps to
> explain the current proposed recommendation in the Final Report where,
> in referring to IRTP-C, the WG is recommending that - in relation to
> de-accreditation - /"where a Change of Registrant (as defined under
> the IRTP) takes place during the process of de-accreditation of a
> proxy service provider, a registrar should lift the mandatory 60-day
> lock at the express request of the beneficial user, provided the
> registrar has also been notified of the de–accreditation of the proxy
> service provider”/.
>
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
>
> From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "James M.
> Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:24
> To: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke at icann.org <mailto:Mike.Zupke at icann.org>>,
> "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>,
> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>,
> Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>
> Hi folks. Just responding to Mike’s post from last Wednesday:
>
> The question of P/P services triggering the “Change of Registrant”
> policy was not, IMO, sufficiently addressed by the IRTP WG. It
> was, however, the subject of extensive discussion by the
> Implementation team, which ultimately determined that Registrar’s
> should have the discretion to determine whether or not this
> qualified as a Change of Registrant. For example, a Registrar may
> determine that adding/removing an affiliated P/P service does NOT
> trigger the change of registrant policy, but that an unaffiliated
> P/P service contains too many unknowns, so explicit consent and a
> 60-day transfer lock may be warranted.
>
> There are a number of practical scenarios where this flexibility
> is needed, including dealing with transfers as part of an
> aftermarket sale, implementation of a UDRP decision, billing or
> payment failures for the P/P service, or termination due to a
> violation of the P/P services terms. I would also caution against
> recommendations of any particular WG (PPSAI) explicitly reverse
> recommendations or Implementation decisions of prior WGs (IRTP-C)
> even before they have been adopted.
>
> I don’t think this should materially affect the overall
> recommendations of PPSAI, nor do I see any incompatibilities with
> this and our recommendations. But happy to discuss this point on
> our next call.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
>
> From: Mike Zupke <Mike.Zupke at icann.org <mailto:Mike.Zupke at icann.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 7:10
> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Volker
> Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, James Bladel
> <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, PPSAI WG
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>, Amy Bivins
> <amy.bivins at icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>>
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>
> Sorry for the delayed reply. We needed to consult with a few others.
>
> In answer to Steve’s question (“Could you clarify whether the
> 60-day lock provision is part of the IRTP as a consensus policy,
> or part of the implementation of that policy?”), the lock was
> included in the policy recommendations of IRTP WG C, which were
> adopted by the Council and Board. There was no mention of privacy
> or proxy services in that part of the recommendation. So our
> implementation of the IRTP C recommendations was done “to the
> letter” of the recommendation, so to speak. I.e., no exception
> was made for privacy and proxy services.
>
> We don’t believe the PPSAI working group is necessarily precluded
> from addressing questions about how the to-be-created type of PP
> registrations interact with the Transfer Policy just because the
> Transfer Policy is an existing policy. PPSAI charter question B-3
> (here: https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg
> <https://community.icann.org/x/ihLRAg>) spoke to having the WG
> “[c]larify how transfers, renewals, and PEDNR policies should apply.”
>
> With regard to the point James made, during implementation of the
> IRTP C recommendations, we talked a good bit about how a proxy (or
> the beneficial customer) could disable a proxy or privacy service
> in a world where consent of the other party would now be required
> in order to make the change in Whois. The solution to that
> question was to allow use of “designated agents” (see
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en#II
> at 1.1.2) to approve Changes of Registrant. I don’t believe the
> matter of exempting PP registrations from the 60 day lock was
> raised by the IRT or in public comment, although I do recall
> occasionally that people would reference the work of this WG as
> potentially being necessary to addressing interaction with
> accredited PP service registrations and the Transfer Policy.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Mike Zupke
>
> Director, Registrar Services
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James
> M. Bladel
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:12 AM
> *To:* Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>
> Agree, and I thought this was also the final determination of the
> IRTP-C Implementation Review Team. It came up several times…
>
> Thanks-
>
> J.
>
> *From: *<gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Volker
> Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net
> <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:22
> *To: *PPSAI WG <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PP transfer issue
>
> In all honesty, a removal of an accredited privacy service should
> not trigger the transfer lock as it does not imply an owner
> change. I am therefore in favor of option 2)
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
> Am 17.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Amy Bivins:
>
> Dear PPSAI WG Members:
>
> Here is the issue you asked staff to address by email today.
> This came to our attention after reflecting on the work done
> Friday by the “implementation issues” sub-team.
>
> In short, disabling a proxy or privacy service will trigger
> the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock required by IRTP C
> (which takes effect on 1 August 2016,
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2015-09-24-en
> ). Although applicable generally, this issue is of particular
> concern following de-accreditation of a privacy or proxy
> service (if transfer to another registrar is required to
> maintain privacy).
>
> Here are 3 things the WG could consider doing to address this:
>
> 1. Maintain the status quo and leave the 60-day IRTP C lock in
> place.
> 2. Create an exception for Privacy and Proxy Service
> customers, so the 60 day IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer)
> lock doesn't apply when/if the customer changes or removes the
> PP service.
> 3. Create an exception for PP users only if a PP service is
> de-accredited, so the IRTP C (inter-registrar transfer) lock
> can be lifted by the beneficial user if the registrar has been
> notified of de-accreditation.
>
> Please let us know if you’d like to us to provide any further
> background.
>
> Thank you!
>
> *Amy E. Bivins*
>
> Registrar Policy Services Manager
>
> *I*nternet *C*orporation for *A*ssigned *N*ames and *N*umbers
> (ICANN)
>
> amy.bivins at icann.org <mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>
>
> Description: icann-logo
>
> */One World. One Internet./*
>
> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
>
> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
>
> 801 17^th Street NW, Suite 400
>
> Washington, DC 20006
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> 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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems
> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
> www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
> angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
> Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
> unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für 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 <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com
> <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
> stay updated:
>
> www.facebook.com/KeySystems
> <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems
> <http://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 <http://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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20160126/f3687ca4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list