URS Recommendation #5 The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org, Registries, Registrars, and URS Providers keep each other’s contact details up to date in order to effectively fulfill the notice requirements set forth in the URS Procedure para 4. Note: This recommendation is related to URS Question #2. | URS Question #2 The Working Group recommends that public comment be sought from Registry Operators on the following question: 2a. Have Registry Operators experienced any issues with respect to receiving notices from URS Providers? 2b. Were these notices sent through appropriate channels? 2c. Did the notices contain the correct information? |
Context:
URS Providers’ feedback indicates there may be some clerical issues concerning the Registry Operators, including:
- Communicating from email addresses different from the contacts present in ICANN's repository;
- Not responsive to requests for information from URS Providers;
- Delay in sending notifications to the URS Providers regarding the completion of URS actions;
- Not completing URS actions despite notifications and reminders from the Providers, resulting in a need for the Providers to report non-compliance to ICANN;
- Due to GDPR, Registries are inconsistent with respect to how they would like to either receive verification requests or how the Provider should receive the verification from them (e.g., dropbox, zip file with password, web based access); the inconsistency adds a significant amount of time to case handling; a small number of Registries do not respond within the required 24 hours for verification requests.
To understand the full picture of the clerical issues reported by the Providers, the Working Group seeks public comment from Registry Operators regarding their experience of receiving notices from URS Providers (see URS Question #2).