Page History
...
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Theo Geurts (RrSG), Owen Smigelski (RrSG) Alternates: Jody Kolker (RrSG), Jothan Frakes (RrSG) |
...
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items:
Continued deliberations on Denial of Transfers (NACKing) (60 minutes) -- see: Working document [docs.google.com] WG members to review the comments in the document, beginning on page 1, and are encouraged to add comments and suggestions.
3.7.3: ACTION ITEM: Staff to research to see if there is background as to why this sentence is included: “In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.” ---- Transfer Policy Review Phase 1 - Meeting #38 Tuesday 01 March 2022 at 16:00 UTC
Charter Question: h1) Are the current reasons for denying or NACK-ing a transfer sufficiently clear? Should additional reasons be considered? For instance, ICANN Contractual Compliance has observed difficulties from registrars tying transfer denials involving domain names suspended for abusive activities to the denial instances contemplated by the Transfer Policy; or should any reasons be removed? In considering this question, the WG may wish to consider:
Discussion of Comments (beginning on page 1): 3.7.1 Evidence of fraud.
3.7.2 Reasonable dispute over the identity of the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact.
3.7.3 No payment for previous registration period (including credit card charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to research to see if there is background as to why this sentence is included: “In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.” 3.7.4: Move to a “MUST” and update “Transfer Contact”. 3.7.5: Move to a “MUST” potentially. Poll to aid in discussion (continued from meeting #37): NOTE: Some of the provisions below are only displayed in part due to character limits in the polling tool. In such cases, the text ends with “. . .”
Reasons that the Registrar of Record MAY deny a transfer request, Cont. 3.7.6 A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred. . .
Discussion:
Reasons that the Registrar of Record MUST deny a transfer request 3.8.1 A pending UDRP proceeding that the Registrar has been informed of.
Discussion:
3.8.2 Court order by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Discussion:
3.8.3 Pending dispute related to a previous transfer pursuant to the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy.
Discussion:
3.8.4 URS proceeding or URS suspension that the Registrar has been informed of.
Discussion:
[NOTE: There is no poll question for 3.8.5 since we agreed to revisit and update this following Phase 1b discussion on COR.] Reasons that the Registrar of Record MAY NOT deny a transfer request 3.9.1 Nonpayment for a pending or future registration period.
Discussion:
3.9.2 No response from the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact.
Discussion:
NOTE: Take up the remainder of the poll responses and review comments at the PDP WG meeting at ICANN73. 4. AOB (5 minutes)
|
...