| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
03.04.2014 25.04.2014 (reply period close) | Initial Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D PDP | Adopted 14Y, 0N, 0A | Alan Greenberg | 05.04.2014 | 11.04.2014 23:59 UTC | 14.04.2014 00:00 UTC | 14.04.2014 00:00 UTC | 17.04.2014 | 18.04.2014 23:59 UTC | 21.04.2014 | Lars Hoffmann Lars.hoffmann@icann.org | AL-ALAC-ST-0414-02-00-EN |
For Information about this PC, please click here.
~~~~
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of the pdf below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The ALAC strongly supports these recommendations.
The ALAC particularly supports Recommendation 5 that would extend the statute of limitation to launch a Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) be extended from the current 6 months to 15 months from the initial transfer. This will provide registrants the opportunity to become aware of fraudulent transfers when they would no longer receive their registrar's annual WDRP notification or renewal notice.
The ALAC's further comments are as follows:
- In Recommendation 9, the term "user-friendliness" should be augmented comprehensively to make it clear that this site should be understandable to a registrant who does not have to deal with such problems on a regular basis. The information should clearly explain circumstances in which the ICANN Compliance can assist in recovery of the registrant's name and when it cannot. Moreover, the site should be available in at least the 5 UN languages.
- In recommendation 10, it is essential that, in addition to Registrars, Resellers be explicitly included.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The ALAC strongly supports these recommendations.
The ALAC's further comments are as follows:
The ALAC particularly supports Recommendation 5 that would extend the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from current 6 months to 15 months from the initial transfer. This will provide registrants the opportunity to become aware of fraudulent transfers when they would no longer receive their registrar's annual WDRP notification or renewal notice.
In Recommendation 9, the term "user-friendliness" should be augmented to make it clear that this site should be understandable to a registrant who does not have to deal with such problems on a regular basis. The information should clearly explain circumstances in which the ICANN Compliance can assist in recovery of the registrant's name and when it cannot. Moreover, the site must be available in a reasonably wide range of languages.
In recommendation 10, it is essential that, in addition to Registrars, Resellers be explicitly included.
3 Comments
Holly Raiche
As a member of the Working Group, I could not be a pen holder, but can put down some of my suggestions, as follows: Although not listed above, I have included the charter questions to which the above recommendations are addressed:
Charter question 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
Recommendations 1 and 2 (above) do recommend reporting requirements with minimum information required except in exceptional circumstances.
Suggest ALAC supports both recommendations
Charter question B: Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
Recommendations 3 - 6 address this issue.
Essentially, the recommendations are for amendments to the TDRP such that, if the initial transfer is found to be invalid through the TDRP, the name goes back to the Registrar of Record and all subsequent transfers are null and void. The recommendations also favour an extension of the statute of limitations from 6 to 12 months to allow time for a registrant to realise that 'their' name has been transferred. Finally, if enforcement under the TDRP is requested, the name is 'locked' against further transfers. what is not in the recommendations, but is in the report is a further statement that, in the case of multiple transfers, even if the first transfer is in violation of the TDRP, if the subsequent transfers were made in good faith, and the statute of limitations has expired, the final (existing) registrant should retain the name. (the principle behind that is one of fairness - if someone has put down money in good faith and without having knowledge (of should have known) of the possible invalid transfer, and the time has expired, they should be able to retain the name.
Suggest ALAC supports the recommendations
Charter Question 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);
Recommendations 7 and 8 relate to this question.
After a lot of discussion, the WG decided that, contrary to recommendations in the ITRP-C report, registrants should not be included in this process - really because of cost. The issue arose because there was no apparent mechanism for registrants to enforce redress in cases where a registrar did not take action on behalf of the registrant to initiate a TDRP process. The WG decided the better path was to have registrants be able to complain to the ICANN compliance area, asking them to require the relevant registrar to take action on behalf of the registrant. As the WG discussed, that will only cover instances where an ICANN policy/process/RAA etc has not been complied with. In other cases where it is an inter-reegistrant dispute over a 'right' to the name, the matter must be settled between the claimant registrants.
Suggest ALAC supports the recommendations
Charter question D: Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
Recommendation 9 and 10 relate to this question.
This is critical if ALAC is to accept particularly recommendation 7. The WG agreed that there is little useful information on the ICANN site that would let registrants understand their 'rights' to a name and what they can do/what can be done if the name is wrongly transferred away from them. So there must be obvious ways into the site, and plenty of information in plain English for registrants. It is also recommended that each registrarmust have either information on their site, or a brief explanation of what to do if a name has been wrongly transferred- who to contact anad how - with relevant links to the relevant ICANN site.
Suggest ALAC supports strongly the recommendation and perhaps stresses the need for readable, accessible information on registrars, resellers and the ICANN site.
Charter question E: Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;
Recommendations 11 and 12 recommend no additional porvisins/penalties, noting the additional penalty structures introduced in 2009 and 2013 RAA amendments as adequate
Suggest ALAC supports the recommendations
Charter question F: Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.”
The WG found this question as not-applicable and the situation will not change.
Alan Greenberg
Proposed statement:
The ALAC strongly supports these recommendations. Moreover, the ALAC suggest to enhancements:
In Recommendation 9, the term "user-friendliness" should be augmented to make it clear that this site should be understandable to a registrant who does not have to deal with such problems on a regular basis. Moreover, the site must be available in a reasonably wide range of languages.
In recommendation 10, it is essential that, in addition to Registrars, Resellers be explicitly included.
Holly Raiche
I am happy with Alan's suggestion but would also add support for the extention of the Statute of Limitations, so it should read:
The ALAC strongly supports these recommendations.
The ALAC's further comments are as follows:
The ALAC particularly supports Recommendation 5 that would extend the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from current 6 months to 15 months from the initial transfer. This will provide registrants the opportunity to become aware of fraudulent transfers when they would no longer receive their registrar's annual WDRP notification or renewal notice.
In Recommendation 9, the term "user-friendliness" should be augmented to make it clear that this site should be understandable to a registrant who does not have to deal with such problems on a regular basis. The information should clearly explain circumstances in which the ICANN Compliance can assist in recovery of the registrant's name and when it cannot. Moreover, the site must be available in a reasonably wide range of languages.
In recommendation 10, it is essential that, in addition to Registrars, Resellers be explicitly included.