Page History
...
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Audio Recording Zoom Recording Chat Transcript GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS/HOMEWORK: Re: Charter Question G1 and G2 on TDRP for consideration and discussion at the next meeting: WG members to review Sections 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Transfer Dispute Resolution policy in preparation for discussion of Charter Question G2 – see: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en.
Notes:
2. Welcome and Chair Updates
3. Review Draft Preliminary Recommendations on TEAC – see attached slides. 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? Draft Preliminary Recommendation #G2-1: Section I.A.4.6.3 of the Transfer Policy states, “Messages sent via the TEAC communication channel must generate a non-automated response by a human representative of the Gaining Registrar. The person or team responding must be capable and authorized to investigate and address urgent transfer issues. Responses are required within 4 hours of the initial request, although final resolution of the incident may take longer.” The working group recommends that the policy must be revised to update the required timeframe for initial response from 4 hours to 24 hours. Rationale in Brief: Reduce risk of gaming, reduce burden on registrars (especially smaller companies and those in time zones outside of Europe and the Americas), while still providing a reasonable response timeframe. Currently RAA has a 24 hour SLA for Rrs to provide a non-automated initial response to reports of illegal activity. This may be considered an analogous situation. Discussion:
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:
Draft Preliminary Recommendation #G2-2: Section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy states in part, “. . . 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 working group recommends that the Transfer Policy must be updated to state that the initial communication to a TEAC is expected to occur no more than [30 days] following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain. If the initial communication to the TEAC occurs more that [30 days] following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain, the registrar contacting the TEAC must provide a detailed written explanation to the TEAC justifying why this is an emergency situation that must be addressed through the TEAC and providing information about why earlier contact to the TEAC was not possible. Rationale in Brief: Defines “a reasonable period of time” while allowing flexibility for exceptional circumstances that may still constitute an emergency. The 30-day period corresponds to the 30-day post transfer lock period. Draft Preliminary Recommendation #G2-3: Once a registrar has provided an initial non-automated response to a TEAC communication as described in Section I.A.4.6.3 of the Transfer Policy, that registrar must provide additional, substantive updates by email to the registrar who initiated the TEAC communication. These updates must be sent every [48 hours] [72 hours] until work to resolve the issue is complete and must include specific actions taken to work towards resolution. Rationale in Brief: Introduces additional transparency and accountability without providing strict deadlines that may not be appropriate or feasible to meet, even when both registrars are working diligently towards resolution of the issue. Discussion: Recommendation #G2-2:
Recommendation #G2-3:
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? Draft Preliminary Recommendation #G1-4: Section I.A.4.6.2 states in part that “The TEAC point of contact may be designated as a telephone number or some other real-time communication channel and will be recorded in, and protected by, the ICANN registrar portal.” The working group recommends that the registrar must provide an email address for the TEAC point of contact and may additionally provide a telephone number or other real-time communication channel. Draft Preliminary Recommendation #G1-5: The working group recommends that initial communication to the TEAC described in Section I.A.4.6.2 of the Transfer Policy must either be in the form of email or be accompanied by an email communication to the TEAC. This email “starts the clock” for the 24-hours response timeframe specified in Preliminary Recommendation #G2-1. The registrar receiving the TEAC communication must respond by email within 24 hours. The registry and ICANN org must be copied on both the initial email to the TEAC and the initial response by the TEAC. Rationale in Brief: Ensures that there is a paper trail associated with each initial TEAC contact without creating complex new requirements for an system of record that may be seldom used. Discussion:
4. Consider outstanding questions on TEAC f1) Is additional data needed to support evaluation of the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism? If so, what data is needed? Some support has been expressed for the idea that more data is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the TEAC mechanism. Some working group members indicated that registrars should be required to track and report on specific data points related to the TEAC going forward. Types of information the BC, RySG, and NCSG identified as potentially useful:
In addition the WG charter identifies the following metrics that could be used to measure whether policy goals are achieved:
To Discuss:
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:
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: RySGsuggests “that ICANN Org include the Rr TEAC in the list of Rr contacts that it regularly supplies to the ROs.” Policy staff is investigating the history of this issue and any other relevant information to be shared for the working group’s consideration. 5. Charter Question G1 and G2 on TDRP – Moved to next meeting: Section 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Transfer Dispute Resolution policy in preparation for discussion of Charter Question G2:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tdrp-2016-06-01-en. 6. AOB |