[At-Large] TR: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)

[Sébastien Bachollet]

For information

Sébastien Bachollet
Président Isoc France
sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr
www.egeni.org
www.isoc.fr
 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08 at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08 at icann.org] De la part de Glen de Saint
Géry
Envoyé : samedi 24 janvier 2009 15:55
À : Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08 at icann.org
Objet : [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Public Comment: Initial Report on the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)


To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org]
[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]
[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]

Dear All,

REMINDER:
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jan09-en.htm
Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part
A)

You are encouraged to submit comments on the Initial Report on the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) from 9 to 30 January 2009.

Please note a summary report has been published in Arabic, Chinese, French,
Russian and Spanish on pages:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/
and 
can be accessed from the public comment section
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-report

A public comment period opened on Friday 9 January 2009 for 21 days on an
Initial Report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). 

The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five
planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. 
http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm
The IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for
exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the
potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication to
verify transfer requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether
the IRTP should include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between
registrars. 

A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its
deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. 

PLEASE NOTE: The Working Group will not make a final decision on which
solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review
of the comments received during the public comment period and in the final
constituency statements has taken place. 

Following its deliberations, the Working Group has made some preliminary
conclusions for each issue, which it hopes will inspire further comments
from the public as well as the constituencies. These preliminary conclusions
are as follows: 

Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address
data available to one another?
The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in
which it is currently used to facilitate transfers. Some members suggested
that finding a way to make the Registrant e-mail address more readily
available could be addressed as part of an overall technical modernization
of the WHOIS protocol.  This could be through updates to the existing
protocol, modification of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or
adoption of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol.
However, after review and discussion none of these options received broad
agreement. 

The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for
providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address,
future IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy
change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it
has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would
not change the current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to
notify the registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before
the process is completed. 

Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic
authentication?
Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad
agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic
authentication. However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether
these options should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be
left to market solutions. 

Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling
partial bulk transfers between registrars?
Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad
agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling
partial bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group
believes that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing
Bulk Transfer provisions, or through existing market solutions. 

As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public
comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for
redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the
GNSO Council for further action. 

The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete
Initial Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf
 [PDF, 383K] before submitting comments. 

Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to
irtp-initial-report at xxxxxxxxxx 

Public comments received can be accessed at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-initial-report/. 

The deadline for submission of comments is 30 January 2009. 

Related links: 

Part A Initial Report: 
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf
[PDF, 383K]

Existing Transfer Policy: 
http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm

Thank you for your cooperation.
kind regards,


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org