...
- TEAC – Issue of the very short time to respond (4 hours): Thought given for accommodating boutique registrars. Discussed in our regular weekly meetings that it creates a high barrier for smaller registrars. Suggested changing to 24 hours. Also nothing about the time frame for resolution.
- TEAC – No real definition of what constitutes an emergency. It could be help if we could frame the terms for when it can be used. How can it be an emergency if it isn’t invoked until 12 months later?
- TEAC – Time frame for resolution – no requirements. Note that if there isn’t agree to change the policy the status quo (current policy) prevails.
- TEAC – Losing registrar doesn’t face the loss of accreditation – what happens if you don’t respond in time to the TEAC? Both Transfer Policy and TDRP mention that there could be penalties, but the details aren’t described.
- TEAC/TDRP – Used very seldom; that could change if they are used more. But the argument to not change them could be because they aren’t used.
- TEAC – Suggested that TEAC process could go through the NSP – Naming Services Portal. Registries would prefer that for tracking and transparency. Would require changes at the NSP.
- TDRP – Think about lighter weight processes that could kick in.
- TEAC – Not a resolution mechanism – it is a contact point. Need a light weight resolution mechanism.
- TDRP – There are registrars who have never used the TDRP. Realize that the landscape has changed since the IRTP.
- Make sure to not open new gaps if we recommend changes.
- Important to consider the locking periods when we consider time frames. Need to be thinking that there is certainty of title and dependencies.
- Look at roll back to the prior DNS – comments?
- This idea of rolling back the DNS – by the gaining registrar? The registry would change back their DNS to the Losing Registrar. Sounds easier in practice than it would be. Deserves further study. More complicated if DNSSEC is involved.
- Settlements between registrars being done on a case-by-case basis – need to keep that flexibility.
- Need to be careful with this – what is the recourse if you get it wrong? Who has the responsibility to correct this? Could use the courts, but parties have to post a security bond, which could be a barrier. Informal method might work better.
- Does the WG agree that there should be a transfer reversal policy separate from the TDRP – if so we should fill out the charge (link above). If there are enough missing pieces (gaps) then the WG should think about whether this requires new policy.
- The unmet need might be where the registrar doesn’t want to represent the registrant in a dispute. WG will have to consider how far they want to pursue that – even if just making a recommendation to Council that someone should look at it.
- Consider all of the reasons that the IRTP didn’t move forward on the ETRP – WG should look at the issues the IRTP encountered before and how things might be different now. Here is the presentation with background on the ETRP and the reasons it did not move forward: https://icann-community.icannatlassian.orgnet/wiki/download/attachments/222268453103596803/TEAC%20%2B%20TDRP%20%2B%20EDRP%20Slides.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1676391058000&api=v2
- Could recommend that the GNSO could look at in future (indemnification) -- lots of gaining registrars are hesitant to reverse transfers informally where the circumstances are murky because they often get the short end of the stick in terms of liability.
...