Page History
...
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/3769xau8
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Raoul Plommer (NCSG), Owen Smigelski (RrSG), Osvaldo Novoa (Council Liaison), John Woodworth (ISPCP) Alternates: Juan Manuel Rojas (NCSG), Essie Musailov (RrSG) |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Chat Transcript GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: Re A possible registrant-initiated dispute resolution mechanism -- staff to present the use cases from IRTP-D for WG consideration; WG members to review and add use cases that might be missing.
Notes:
2. Recap Outcomes - Last Week’s Call – see attached slides 4-5. f1) Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism? If so, what data is needed? Summary: No new recommendations. Respond to charter question by:
f6/f7) The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team indicated that there are several factors that make a Registry Operator’s obligation to “undo” a transfer under Section 6.4 of the Transfer Policy challenging:
To what extent are changes to the policy needed to address these concerns? Are there other pain points for Registry Operators that need to be considered in the review of the policy in this regard? Summary: Item i: Policy staff is collecting additional information. Item ii, iii, iv: Recommend no change. Response to charter question will summarize the deliberations. Discussion:
3. Charter Question g1 – see attached slides 7-8. See also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i6tLO_qbSa-ace0BnKaAn7voP1UA1RjYlrRo2ZneZNY/edit?usp=sharing. 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? Additional Data Point: Forum reported that it received 11 TDRP filings in total, with 9 decisions and 2 withdrawals. 5 of the 9 decisions were filed prior to December 1, 2016 when publication was first required. To Discuss: As a reminder, this question focuses specifically on whether there is enough information to evaluate if TDRP is an effective mechanism for resolving disputes between registrars in cases of alleged violations of the IRTP. We will discuss proposed recommendation to improve dispute resolution options as part of a different charter question (g3). Is it sufficient to answer this charter question but summarizing the information/data that the WG used to support its deliberations on the TDRP, while noting that there are limitations to the available information about the broader context of how issues are resolved (or not) using the available mechanisms? Discussion:
4. Charter Question g2 – see attached slide 9 and also: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en, section 3 Dispute Procedures, 3.1 Registrar files a Request for Enforcement with a Dispute Resolution Provider, and 3.2 The Respondent shall have seven (7) calendar days from receipt of the Complaint to prepare a Response to the Complaint ("Response"). 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? Discussion questions:
Re: Rec 27 see the working document for rec 27, wave 1 for TEAC and TDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GTtkEPJvYNMW27UaJZAGQlSb1BOYRhO7rSbFyb_9dhs/edit TDRP section 3.2.4 provides that a panel appointed by a TDRP provider will “review all applicable documentation and compare registrant/contact data with that contained within the authoritative Whois database and reach a conclusion not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of Response.” This provision relies on comparison with the "authoritative Whois database," which does not have a clear analogue in the new Registration Data Policy. [Notes from TPR Meeting on 25 April 2023: Some members of the WG noted that TDRP section 3.2.4 could be stated at a higher level to ask the Panel to review the documentation provided to determine whether a violation of the Transfer Policy has occurred. Support Staff has proposed updated language on what this could look like. Other WG members noted that the Panel should request the redacted registration data from the Gaining Registrar, similar to how this is done in a UDRP proceeding. Support Staff has also proposed language so that the WG could see how this could look.] Discussion:
This would be the suggested language from Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy with Rec. 27 updates at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ncsCc_sYiBs2cRZVOPCrBes92aV0p-6S-7hNBkmM9w/edit [[DRAFT ADDED STEP: The Provider shall submit a verification request to the sponsoring Registrar. The verification request will include a request to Lock the domain name.]] [[DRAFT ADDED STEP: Within two (2) business days of receiving the Provider's verification request, the sponsoring Registrar shall provide the information requested in the verification request and confirm that a Lock of the domain name has been applied. The Lock shall remain in place through the remaining Pendency of the TDRP proceeding.]] 5. Charter Question g3 (time permitting) – see attached slides 10, 11, and 12. g3) If the TDRP is considered to be insufficient:
To Discuss: Is there evidence to support that there is a problem to solve? For example evidence of the following:
If there is evidence to support that there is a problem, is a new dispute resolution process the best solution?
inter-registrant and inter-registrar transfers from occurring? As a reminder:
Discussion:
ACTION ITEM: Re: A possible registrant-initiated dispute resolution mechanism -- staff to present the use cases from IRTP-D for WG consideration; WG members to review and add use cases that might be missing. 6. AOB |