Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Crystal Ondo (RrSG), Steinar Grøtterød (At-Large) Alternates: Jody Kolker (RrSG), Raymond Mamattah (At-Large) |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Zoom RecordingChat Transcript GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Actions from Meeting on 14 February:
Notes:
2. Welcome and Chair Updates
3. Continued Discussion of Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) We will be using the following working document to support discussion on TEAC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ejqMnKrN5Pnqyne6G4jHj-DPTfFLVidmeSDpyPM06eA/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]. As we move through deliberations on this topic, archived versions of the working document will be kept on the wiki here: https:// Action Itemscommunity.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/Working+Documents Summary of working document:
Discussion on Charter Questions: f1) Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism? If so, what data is needed?
Deliberations:
Discussion:
ACTION ITEM: Re: Data from RADAR relating to TEAC -- Staff will check to see if there is any available data. f2/f3) The time frame (4 hours) for registrars to respond to communications via the TEAC channel has been raised as a concern by the Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team and in survey responses. Some have expressed that registries must, in practice, have 24x7 coverage by staff members with the appropriate competency to meet this requirement and the language skills to respond to communications from around the world. Is there merit to concerns that the requirement disproportionately impacts certain registrars, namely:
iii. Registrars in countries where English is not the primary language, who may, in practice, need to have English-speaking TEAC contacts to respond to requests in English? To what extent should the 4-hour time frame be revisited in light of these concerns? Are there alternative means to address the underlying concerns other than adjusting the time frame? RrSG comment on the issue (input to Policy Status Report): There is significant concern with the 4-hour response time requirement… Other input received via survey:
Deliberations:
Discussion:
ACTION ITEM: Re: The time frame (4 hours) for registrars to respond to communications via the TEAC channel – WG members should consider a provisional recommendation to change the time frame to 24 hours. f4) Section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy states that “Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner, within a reasonable period of time following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain.” The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team noted that this timeframe should be more clearly defined. Is additional guidance needed to define a “reasonable period of time” after which registrars should be expected to use a standard dispute resolution process? Note: The WG may want to discuss two possible issues:
Relevant RrSG comment on the issue (input to Policy Status Report):
Relevant survey input - Policy Status Report:
Deliberations: Regarding time frame for first contact with the TEAC:
Regarding time frame for resolution:
Discussion:
f5) According to section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy, the TEAC may be designated as a telephone number, and therefore some TEAC communications may take place by phone. The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team flagged this provision as a potential item for further consideration. Do telephone communications provide a sufficient “paper trail” for registrars who may later wish to request a transfer “undo” based on failure by a TEAC to respond? Such a request would require the registrar to provide evidence that a phone call was made and not answered, or a call back was not received within 4 hours. Noting this requirement, should the option to communicate by phone be eliminated? Is an authoritative “system of record” for TEAC communications warranted? If so, what are the requirements for such a system? Deliberations:
Discussion:
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:
iii. Transfer “undo” requests associated with the failure of a TEAC to respond are unilateral so there is no validation required prior to a Registry Operator taking action. This has, on occasion, led to a “he said”, “she said” scenario.
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? Deliberations:
Discussion:
Other pain points/opportunities:
Function/purpose of the TEAC:
4. AOB: Two more calls before ICANN76 --- 28 February and 07 March ACTION ITEM: If WG members cannot attend the 07 March meeting please let the Secretariat staff know at gnso-secs@icann.org so we can decide if we have enough attendance to hold the meeting.
|