Page History
...
- Roll Call/SOI Update
- Presentation & Discussion on Relevant Transfer Policies (presentation by James Bladel, Rr SG)
- Continuation of Discussion on Category B Question 3
- Next Steps/Next Meeting
...
PPSAI - Cat C - Question 1 - 12 April 2014 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
IRTP gTLD transfers overview slides
Questions for Discussion specifically pertaining to Renewals & Transfers:
- Per the ERRP, 'registrars must notify the registered name holder of the expiration at least two times'. Should there be a requirement for the P/P provider to pass these notices on to the P/P customer?
- Per the ERRP, 'if a registration is not renewed by the RAE or deleted by the registrar, within five days after the expiration of the registration, the registrar must transmit at least one additional expiration notice to the RAE that includes instructions for renewing the registration'. Should there be a requirement for the P/P provider to pass these notices on to the P/P customer?
- Per the ERRP, 'beginning at the time of expiration and through the DNS resolution interruption period described in paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, the RAE must be permitted by the registrar to renew the expired registration'. What if the underlying customer wants to renew the registration? Idem for restoration during the Redemption Grace Period.
- In relation to the IRTP, should there be any restrictions concerning transfers of P/P registrations? (e.g. some of the terms and conditions require the P/P services to be removed during the transfer process). Depending on the response to this question, all communications in the IRTP currently go via the transfer contact (Registered Name Holder / Admin Contact). Should there be any requirements for this information to also be communicated to the P/P customer? What happens if there is a disagreement relating to the transfer between the P/P provider and the P/P customer?
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ppsa-20140415-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: TBA
Attendees:
Luc Seufer - RrSG
Graeme Bunton – RrSG
Tim Ruiz – RrSG
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Kathy Kleiman – RySG
Darcy Southwell - RrSG
Libby Baney - BC
Roy Balleste – NCUC
Susan Prosser – RrSG
Justin Macy – BC
Jim Bikoff – IPC
David Heasley – IPC
Michele Neylon – RrSG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Jennifer Standiford – RrSG
James Bladel – RrSG
Volker Greimann – RrSG
Tatiana Khramtsova – RrSG
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Maria Farrell – NCUC
Paul McGrady – IPC
Tobias Sattler – RrSG
Phil Marano – IPC
Christain Dawson – ISPCP
Laura Jedeed – BC
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Gema Campillos – GAC
Stephanie Perrin – NCSG
Valeriya Sherman – IPC
Frank Michlick - RrSG
Apologies:
Kristina Rosette – IPC
Sarah Wyld – RrSG
Holly Raiche – ALAC
Marie-Laure Lemineur – NPOC
Amr Elsadr – NCUC
Joe Catapano -Staff
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Amy Bivins
Mike Zupke
Terri Agnew
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday 15 April 2014:
Marika Konings:Welcome to the PPSAI WG Meeting of 15 April 2014
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello everyone
Don Blumenthal:Good morning Osvaldo
Carlton Samuels:Hello All. Good morning
maria farrell:hi all
Terri Agnew:Maria I have you on attendance list
maria farrell:Thanks so much, Terri.
Terri Agnew:Susan Prosser has joined
Terri Agnew:Jennifer Standiford has joined
Tim Ruiz:Good morning. Sorry to be a little late.
Terri Agnew:Hi Tim, I have you on attendance list
Terri Agnew:Volker Greimann has joined
Terri Agnew:Tobias Sattler has joined
Tobias Sattler:Sorry for being late.
Luc Seufer:bah. No biggy it's just another Baldel presentation
Michele Neylon:Well you'd need to have the key before you place the order with us
Luc Seufer:;-)
Michele Neylon:no key => no order
Luc Seufer:same at EuroDNS.
Michele Neylon:GD being Special
Tatiana Khramtsova:RU-CENTER procedure is the same as GD
Don Blumenthal:Sorry for losing sight of the queue also. I've been entertained by the presentation but also the chat.
Mary Wong:Re Kathy's question - please see the last question on the right side (in the Notes pod).
Terri Agnew:Phil Marano has joined
Frank Michlick:Show of hands, who tries to transfer/parse thin registry information?
Frank Michlick:(whois information that is)
Mary Wong:These were some additional questions that had been circulated to the WG list some time ago in the hope of generating some information/discussion.
Michele Neylon:thick whois solves a lot of this
Mary Wong:For your convenience, this is the relevant IRTP question: In relation to the IRTP, should there be any restrictions concerning transfers of P/P registrations? (e.g. some of the terms and conditions require the P/P services to be removed during the transfer process). Depending on the response to this question, all communications in the IRTP currently go via the transfer contact (Registered Name Holder / Admin Contact). Should there be any requirements for this information to also be communicated to the P/P customer? What happens if there is a disagreement relating to the transfer between the P/P provider and the P/P customer?
steve metalitz:Could someone explain further how thick Whois would help the problem of needing to exit the service before transfer? The thcik Whois would have the same data as the registrar has in a thin environment.
Carlton Samuels:Yes. transfers between registrars is not reliable in thin registries. Came up before and Thick registreies with EPP is the answer.
Kathy K:"valid key" = authinfo code?
Bladel:Yes.
Kathy K:Tx!
Kathy K:Interesting, tx you Volker!
Don Blumenthal:As far as I know, only two reistry operators are on the WG, PIR and Rightside.
Bladel:Are we done with slides? I think we might be done. :)
Kathy K:Can we continue through the slides? They are very valuable!
Don Blumenthal:James asked for questions at the strart. :)
Kathy K:Is there a way to create a footnote in our materials to revisit these issues when we reach the Relay questions?
Mary Wong:@Kathy, we were hoping that the transfer/renewal-specific questions posted in the Notes pod (and circulated previously) can be discussed here so that we can incorporate them into the template.
Tim Ruiz:@Steve, Thick registries would have to add that option to their data collection and that puts that data in yet another entities hands. So it might not be ideal for all users seeking privacy in all situations.
Mary Wong:(as part of Cat B Q3, second half of that question)
Tim Ruiz:In addition, the entire transfer process would have to change for those transfers.
Carlton Samuels:The Thick Registry would have the P/P provider information not the underlying privacy client data
Tim Ruiz:So my question is: how do we deal with transfers in p/p setting WITHOUT having to also initiate a transfer PDP to deal with the process changes.
Tim Ruiz:@Michele, those are enforcement issues. If ICANN cannot enforce its policies, then we are all wasting our time.
Mary Wong:@Tim, our suggestion is for this WG to come up with some suggestions (per the questions on the right). These can then be evaluated against the current transfer processes (and IRTP implementation) to see if there are any potential conflicts or problems.
Tim Ruiz:If someone has the authcode, why is anything else necessary? The underlying user gets the authcode from the p/p provider and provides that to the new registrar. Once the valid authcode is presented to the registry it allows the transfer.
Terri Agnew:Gema Campillos has joined
Tim Ruiz:@Kathy. Exactly.
steve metalitz:@Tim, this assumes that the proxy provide associated with the losing registrar is obligated to cooperate with the transfer process. It sounds as though that is not the status quo.
Tim Ruiz:@Steve, but that's the kind of thing we are here to change, right?
Stephanie Perrin:My apologies for being late. Netmundial seems to rule life these days.
Michele Neylon:unless you sign in blood it's not 100% secure tbh
Terri Agnew:Stephanie I have added you to attendance list
Paul McGrady:Apologies, but I need to leave the call early today due to another committment. Thank you for this presentation and all of the important issues it raises for our consideration.
Don Blumenthal:Tim, is the point about a losing registrar a general Rr conduct problem or relatred to p/p issues?
Michele Neylon:Don - p/p more than anything probably .
Michele Neylon:or maybe I'm missing the context
Terri Agnew:Val Sherman has joined
Don Blumenthal:Or I missed the point of something.
Michele Neylon:Why was Frank Michlick kicked off Adobe??
Mary Wong:@Michele, he is not a member of this WG and did not respond to several messages asking for clarification.
Michele Neylon:he's on the list
Mary Wong:The WG mailing list? I will need to check in with him then about membership and an SOI.
Michele Neylon:please do
Mary Wong:I will, thanks, Michele.
Michele Neylon:He's crying over IM here
Michele Neylon:it's very sad
Michele Neylon:grown German crying
Luc Seufer:We have a limit on the number of Canadians (and assimilated) we can have on the same working group
Mary Wong:Please let him know we're sorry if there was a mistake but we don't have him on the membership list and we sent several private messages without response.
Michele Neylon:Mary - he probably can't see them
Tim Ruiz:@james, could you describe that problem?
Mary Wong:@Michele, they were PMs in this Adobe room :)
Tim Ruiz:@James, I think its called email ;-)
Terri Agnew:Stephanie please check your mute
steve metalitz:Are we going to address the questions on right hand side?
Kathy K:I think we have a number of points to return to in later discussions.
Mary Wong:@Steve that would be our recommendation.
Stephanie Perrin:Sorry, mic not working . I just wanted to follow up on the remark citing mikey about how much is loaded on the auth code.....what exactly does that do to its reliability?
Don Blumenthal:Steve, Thanks. I often lose sight of the notes panel
Kathy K:Stephanie
Mary Wong:The last question in the Notes pad is specific to IRTP. where the others are more relevant to ERRP.
Bladel:PEDNR PSTD
Kathy K:Interesting
steve metalitz:Thanks Michele. How woudl this be handled in the case of an accrdited proxy service provider that is not affiliated wtih the registrar?
Kathy K:+1 Tim - this makes a lot of sense - and seems to hold the keys to a resolution of the issues we are wrestlin gwith
Kathy K:Don, before we leave the document, could Mary perhaps describes any recent updates to it?
Don Blumenthal:OK
Mary Wong:@Kathy, we added your suggestion of yesterday - you'll see it in the second column as displayed here.
steve metalitz:Whatdoes RAE mean in the 2d and 3d questions on right of screen?
Don Blumenthal:Remember to scroll down. Adobe session participants control the screen when templates are up
Mary Wong:Registration At Expiration I believe.
Michele Neylon:correct
Kathy K:Tx you! (text is coming out very small... maybe time for new glasses :-))
Mary Wong:Oops, sorry, RegistRANT at Expiration
Bladel:but from their REGISTRAR?
Carlton Samuels:"vigorously" is right!
Stephanie Perrin:@James re forwarding...I think this is a key question, as Michele is pointing out. That list should be limited and specific in my view, as Michele is pointing out....
Bladel:Agree.
Bladel:Failure to relay unsoliciated emails from 3rd parties means the P/P service is working.
Luc Seufer:@STephanie which list?
Tim Ruiz:@Stephanie, anything related to their domain name that is critical, renewals, transfers, etc.
Stephanie Perrin:@James, and thanks for tthe clarification re the auth code...that helps.
Carlton Samuels:@Michele interesting piece of info
Bladel::)
Bladel:that's ICANN.....
Kathy K:makes sense, Michele, but the operational emails from Registrars being passed on makes sense - I think Registrants want these!
steve metalitz:excellent presentation and discussion today
Tim Ruiz:Thanks James and Don and all! Bye.
Kathy K:Tx All!
Stephanie Perrin:indeed, excellent presentation and slides! thanks
Carlton Samuels:@James: Thanks for the presentation! Very helpful to reinforce some stuff
Mary Wong:Thank you all.
Bladel:thx Don & team.
Phil Marano:Thank you
Luc Seufer:THanks all
