[ALAC] Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 27 03:17:26 UTC 2012
I was asked for an opinion on whether an ALAC statement is necessary
on the
<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Preliminary+Issue+Report+on+the+Inter-Registrar+Transfer+Policy+%28IRTP%29+Part+D+Workspace>Preliminary
Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D.
The short answer is that I do not believe that a statement is
required, but I would appreciate a "sense of the ALAC" that this PDP
should be initiated.
IRTP-D is the last of a set of PDP's to review and possibly update
various aspects of the Inter-Registrar transfer Policy (IRTP). IRTP-D
consideres:
a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute
providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend
information available to the community and allow reference to past
cases in dispute submissions;
b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP
(Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when
multiple transfers have occurred;
c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and
implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on
registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place
for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution
options available to registrants;
e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or
if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be
added into the policy;
f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo
codes has eliminated the need of FOAs (Forms of Authorization).
This Public Comment is an opportunity to identify errors or omissions
in the Preliminary Issue Report, and to provide support for
initiating the PDP. O know of no specific errors or omissions.
Although I support the PDP going forward, given the long history
which got us to this stage, I am not expecting much opposition so I
do not feel that a written comment is worth the effort.
The PDP does address a number of issues that could benefit
registrants and for that reason I do believe that it should go ahead.
If the ALAC agrees, I would like to carry that message forward. I
would also strongly advise that there be At-Large representatives on
the resultant WG.
Alan
More information about the ALAC
mailing list