Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Raoul Plommer (NCSG), Owen Smigelski (RrSG), Crystal Ondo (RrSG), Prudence Malinki (RrSG), James Galvin (RySG), John Woodworth (ISPCP) Alternates: Juan Manuel Rojas (NCSG), Rich Brown (RrSG), Essie Musailov (RrSG), Christopher Patterson (RrSG), Carolyn Mitchell (RySG) |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Chat Transcript GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: None captured.
Notes:
2. Welcome and Chair Updates
3. New proposals for policy requirements - non-emergency informal resolution (if any are received) (link to working document [docs.google.com])
4. Status and next steps on Charter Questions F1-F7 (see TEAC working document [docs.google.com] and attached slides) Question F1: f1) Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism? If so, what data is needed? Status: In written input RySG, NCSG, and BC have stated that it would be helpful to have additional metrics from registrars to support policymaking. In WG discussion, some support was expressed for requiring registrars to track and report on TEAC activity.
Discussion:
Questions F2/F3: f2) 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:
f3) 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? Status: In initial deliberations, some support was expressed for extending the timeframe for initial contact from 4 hours to 24 hours. Early written input does not seem to contradict this path forward:
Discussion:
Question F4: 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 working group has considered two items related to this charter question:
f4, Item 1: The timeframe for initial contact to the TEAC following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain. Status: Comments from the RySG, RrSG, NCSG, and BC support providing more guidance around “a reasonable period of time.” While some working group members have favored providing a precise deadline, others have noted that there may be circumstances that require more flexibility. RrSG suggested that the timeframe should be aligned with when the registrar is made aware of the unauthorized transfer. BC suggested the period could be 5 days from the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain.
Discussion:
f4, Item 2: The timeframe for final resolution of an issue raised through the TEAC channel Status: Some working group members noted that it would be helpful to have defined timeframes, but others raised that each case is different and some cases may take longer to resolve than others. Absent data about the types of cases and resolutions handled through the TEAC channel, it is difficult to define requirements.
Discussion:
Question F5: 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? Status: There are different views on this question:
Discussion:
Questions F6/7: 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? Issue i Status:
Discussion:
Issue ii, iii, iv Status:
Question for Input: According to Transfer Policy Section I.A.6.4, “The Registry Operator shall undo a transfer if, after a transfer has occurred, the Registry Operator receives one of the notices as set forth below. . .6.4.4 Documentation provided by the Registrar of Record prior to transfer that the Gaining Registrar has not responded to a message via the TEAC within the timeframe specified in Section I.A.4.6.” Would a requirement that first contact occurs by email sufficiently mitigate registry concerns about “he said, she said” scenarios? Discussion:
Next Steps:
5. AOB |