Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Raoul Plommer (NCSG), Zak Muscovitch (BC), Crystal Ondo (RrSG), Prudence Malinki (RrSG), Catherine Merdinger (RrSG), Osvaldo Novoa (Council Liaison) Alternates: Juan Manuel Rojas (NCSG), Arinola Akinyemi (BC), Jothan Frakes (RrSG), Christopher Patterson (RrSG), Essie Musailov (RrSG) |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Audio Recording Zoom Recording Chat Transcript GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items
ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK:
ACTION ITEMS re: Charter question g3 and additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP:
ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkmM9w/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and note anything that might be missing or require clarification. NOTE: The document is set for editing – please use suggestion mode so that changes are highlighted.
Notes:
Transfer Policy Review - Meeting #93 Proposed Agenda 30 May 2023
1. Welcome and Chair Updates
2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call
g1) Is there enough information available to determine if the TDRP is an effective mechanism for resolving disputes between registrars in cases of alleged violations of the IRTP? If not, what additional information is needed to make this determination?
Summary: No new recommendations. Respond to charter question by:
Discussion:
g2) The ADNDRC reported to the IRTP Part D Working Group that in some of the cases it processed, appellees and appellants failed to provide sufficient information to support arbitration. Is this an issue that needs to be examined further in the context of the policy? Are the existing informational materials about the TDRP sufficient to ensure that registrars understand the process and the requirements for filing a dispute, including the information they need to give to the dispute resolution provider?
Summary: No new recommendations. Respond to charter question by:
3. Charter Question g3 (draft scenarios) -- Use Cases from IRTP D Final Report [gnso.icann.org], please see pp. 41-42
g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient: i. Are additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP? ii. Should the approach to the TDRP itself be reconsidered?
If there is evidence to support that there is a problem, is a new dispute resolution process the best solution?
As a reminder:
Use Cases
Recommendation #9. The WG recommends that staff, in close cooperation with the IRTP Part C implementation review team, ensures that the IRTP Part C inter-registrant transfer recommendations are implemented and monitor whether dispute resolution mechanisms are necessary to cover the Use Cases in Annex C. Once such a policy is implemented, its functioning should be closely monitored, and if necessary, an Issues Report be called for to assess the need for an inter-registrant transfer dispute policy.
Discussion:
ACTION ITEMS re: Charter question g3 and additional mechanisms needed to supplement the TDRP:
4. Charter Question g4 -- Note: Please review Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the TDRP in advance of the meeting
g4) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, compliant with data protection law?
Discussion:
5. Charter Question g5 -- Note: Please review Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.4 of the TDRP in advance of the meeting
g5) Are requirements for the processing of registration data, as specified in the TDRP, appropriate based on principles of privacy by design and data processing minimization?
ACTION ITEM: WG members to review the redlined Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkmM9w/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and note anything that might be missing or require clarification. NOTE: The document is set for editing – please use suggestion mode so that changes are highlighted.
6. AOB
|