Interim Report Review Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers ICANN DNSO Names Council Task Force on Transfers Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD Names.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Generic Names Supporting Organisation Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council.
Advertisements

Update on Whois TF March 25, Objectives of the Task Force 1)Define the purpose of the Whois service. [complete] 2)Define the purpose of the Registered.
STAFF Implement Proposed action STAFF – Assess (initial AND revisions based on feedback) Implementation change? Policy guidance needed? Admin/error update?
Module N° 4 – ICAO SSP framework
Objectives 1. Promote interoperability and interconnection between land registries and conveyancers in different Member States; 2. Promote increased efficiency.
International Telecommunication Union HIPSSA Project Support for Harmonization of the ICT Policies in Sub-Sahara Africa.
KSTCD Branch/HRD Section/TrainForTrade & STICT Branch/ ICT Analysis Section1 Module 2 Legal validity of data messages.
ICANN/ccTLD Agreements: Why and How Andrew McLaughlin Monday, January 21, 2002 TWNIC.
FIPS 201 Personal Identity Verification For Federal Employees and Contractors National Institute of Standards and Technology Information Technology Laboratory.
Workshop on registered electronic mail policies and implementations (ETT 57074) Ankara, –
Cairo 2 November Agenda  Guidebook overview  Supporting and explanatory materials  Guidebook Module detail  Probable timelines 2.
Intergovernmental Relations Framework Bill (Select Committee: NCOP) Intergovernmental Relations Framework Bill (Select Committee: NCOP) Department of Provincial.
Coping with Electronic Records Setting Standards for Private Sector E-records Retention.
Purpose of the Standards
Long-term Archive Service Requirements draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-00.txt.
AMG Attendance System Product Description Copyright © 2009 AMG Employee Management, Inc.AMG Employee Management, Inc.
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) Proposal Comments Sue Todd, Director, Product Management Monday 11 May 2009, San Francisco.
Policy & Implementation WG Initial Recommendations Report.
1 OVERVIEW PRESENTATION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002.
Overview What are the provisioning methods used in the Australian registry system? How are these provisioning systems secured?
CROMERR Applied to Industrial Pretreatment Linko Data Systems, Inc. PretreatmentPretreatment & Fats Oil and Grease SoftwareFats Oil and Grease Software.
Dr. Diganta Biswas School of Law Christ University, Bangalore.
Effectively Integrating Information Technology (IT) Security into the Acquisition Process Section 5: Security Controls.
Legislation, Regulation, Guidelines
Circulation of authentic instruments under Regulation 650/2012 speaker – Ivaylo Ivanov – Bulgarian Notary Chamber.
Compliance and Regulation for Mobile Solutions Amanda J. Smith Messick & Lauer, P.C. May 16, 2013.
Introduction to Software Quality Assurance (SQA)
Records Managers’ Forum 28 February Draft standard on the appraisal and disposal of State records Catherine Robinson Senior Project Officer, Government.
E-Commerce Directive 2002 Overview. This Map It was derived from Complying with the E-Commerce Regulations 2002 by the DTI.
Part of the BRE Trust Approved Certifiers of Design: Section 6 (Energy) BRE Scotland.
CcTLD/ICANN Contract for Services (Draft Agreements) A Comparison.
The Operational Point of Contact Proposal GNSO Whois Task Force.
#ICANN49 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D PDP Working Group.
Commodity Exchange Act Exemption Status Mark Ruane ERCOT Vice President of Credit and Enterprise Risk Management CWG January 26 th 2012 ERCOT Public.
National Electronic Conveyancing Legal Framework First Stakeholder Meeting SYDNEY 16 May 2011.
Domain Name Registration Sanjay Gupta August 29, 2008.
Secure Credential Manager Claes Nilsson - Sony Ericsson
Text. #ICANN49 Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group Thursday 27 March 2014 – 08:00.
Electronic Signatures in the SFA Loan Programs Electronic P-Notes Presented by Jeff Baker & Kay Jacks.
A Flexible Access Control Model for Web Services Elisa Bertino CERIAS and CS Department, Purdue University Joint work with Anna C. Squicciarini – University.
Global Name Registry Proposal to Modify Appendix O: WHOIS Data Access.
IRTP Part D PDP WG Items for Review. Items for Review Policy Development Process WG Charter GNSO WG Guidelines.
Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures
IETF63 - enum WG1 ENUM validation architecture & friends Alex Mayrhofer enum.at / 3.4.e164.arpa Bernie Höneisen SWITCH.
Bucharest, June 2002 Transfers Task Force Report Bucharest ICANN Meeting June 2002.
Policy Update. Agenda Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Thick Whois PDP IRTP Part D PDP Policy & Implementation Other efforts?
Transfers Task Force Briefing ICANN Domain Names Council Meeting March 12, 2002 Registry Registrar BRegistrar A.
Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) Accountability Update 8 October 2015.
DIGITAL SIGNATURE.
9-Oct-03D.P.Kelsey, LCG-GDB-Security1 LCG/GDB Security (Report from the LCG Security Group) FNAL 9 October 2003 David Kelsey CCLRC/RAL, UK
Governmental Advisory Committee Public Safety Working Group 1.
Review of CCWG-Acct 3 rd Proposal and ALAC Issues Alan Greenberg 04 December 2015.
A. Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate.
IRTP Part B PDP Final Report Overview. Background Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Straightforward process for registrants to transfer domain names.
Presented by Eliot Christian, USGS Accessibility, usability, and preservation of government information (Section 207 of the E-Government Act) April 28,
Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG Graeme Bunton, Vice Chair | ICANN-52 | February 2015.
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Presentation of Initial Report.
1  Only 370 million of world’s 6 billion population know English as native language  70% content on web is in English but more than 50% of current internet.
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN
Electronic Transactions & Authentication
Abuse Mitigation + NG RDS PDP
Rights Protection Mechanism Report to the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee
General Data Protection Regulation
IDN Variant TLDs Program Update
Draft ETSI TS Annex C Presented by Michał Tabor for PSD2 Workshop
Legislation, Regulation, Guidelines
E-Contracts and Internet Law
e-Invoicing – e-Ordering 20/11/2008
EE DNS FORUM / UADOM Domain name dispute resolution: challenges and alternatives Kateryna Oliinyk Head of Arzinger IP practice, Patent and Trademark Attorney.
Municipal systems act:
Presentation transcript:

Interim Report Review Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers ICANN DNSO Names Council Task Force on Transfers Public Discussion on Transfers of gTLD Names Tuesday October 28, 2002

Overview Document was initially tabled by Tucows to the Registrar Constituency (R’rarC) in mid as a proposed best practice. After discussion within the constituency, Register.com & Tucows collaborated on a revised document that was accepted by the R’rarC as a formal position in late 2001.

Overview R’rarC tabled document with the Transfers Task Force in early The document has continually been revised by the Task Force since mid-2002 as the result of Constituency & GA input. –There have been over 50 draft versions since the first 2001 draft.

Document Structure Five Major Sections –Principles –Provisions –Registrar Processes –Enforcement –Definitions

Principles Definition; The underlying assumptions & requirements that guided the creation of the rest of the document. These are the keys to interpreting the document and implementing its recommendations.

Principles Registrars cannot place additional conditions or restrictions on transfers that aren’t covered in the recommendations. A Registrant’s right to transfer cannot be contracted away. Transfer processes should be secure and not subject to tampering.

Principles Registrars must keep records of transfer transactions and approvals. Registrars must conduct transfers in a way that promotes consumer confidence. New transfer policies should not mean new technologies or protocols.

Principles Transfer transactions should be auditable. Transfer transactions should take into account the global nature of the DNS. New processes or policies should not unduly burden any parties involved in a transfer. Transfer processes should be as automated as possible.

Principles Registrars and Registries should be free to implement the processes using whatever technology they choose except where interoperability requires standardization (ie – EPP/RRP) The Gaining Registrar is responsible for initiating and verifying the authenticity of a transfer request.

Principles Transfer processes should be as solid as possible to prevent gaming. Only the Registrant or Administrative Contact associated with a domain name may request and authorize a transfer.

Principles Transfer processes should be clear and easy to interact with for Registrants. Registrars must provide Registrants with authorization codes (where applicable) within 72 hours. RU Paying Attention?

Principles Registrars may not use the transfer process to hold a name “hostage” in the event that there is a dispute with the registrant over payment – other more appropriate mechanisms exist. –ie – “hold” instead of “lock” or “hold” instead of “nack”.

Provisions Definition; These are the global rules that all parties are bound to throughout the Inter- Registrar Domain Transfer processes.

Provisions The Gaining Registrar is solely responsible for validating the authenticity of a transfer request and the intent of the registrant. The Registrant and the Administrative Contact are the only parties that have the authority to approve a transfer.

Provisions A Standard Form of Authorization must be used to verify the intention of the Registrant. –This form can be “digital” or “analog” –A number of forms of identification are contemplated for “analog” and digital processes Ie – passport, electronic signature, etc.

Provisions The Gaining Registrar must store all documentation for later inspection by relevant parties –Registrants –Registrars –ICANN

Provisions Losing Registrars can only deny transfers in specific circumstances –Evidence of a fraudulent request –Pending UDRP action –Court order –Non-payment for a previous registration period –Express objection from the R’ant or Admin Contact

Provisions Specific “may not deny” circumstances are also included; –Non-payment for a future or pending registration period –Non-response of the R’ant or Admin Contact in the case of a secondary request for authenticity –Registration period time constraints –Generalized payment defaults between the registrar and one of their partners/resellers/affiliates

Specific Processes Definition; These are the specific processes that Registrars must implement (and Registries must facilitate) if they are to abide by the policy governing transfers.

Specific Processes One verification request sent to Registrants Capture of all relevant transaction data –Old whois –Time stamp of important events –Standard Form of Authorization Registrants continue to have full capability to approve or deny specific requests

Specific Processes Assumes that no request is valid on its face –Positive verification of R’ant’s intent is mandatory Legacy Registry (RRP) and New Registry (EPP) protocol “friendly” –Effectively deals with “authorization codes” that the new gTLD registries use to verify the identity of a requestor

Enforcement Definition; These are the specific mechanisms that third parties can use to ensure that the transfers process is abided by appropriately.

Enforcement Creates a new facility by which registrars could seek resolution and/or enforcement on specific “problem” transfers Seeks to provide Registrants with a predictable and efficient framework whereby problems with transfers can be solved.

Enforcement Allows for reversals Allows for appeals Does not pose a cost burden to the Registrant –The registrar that “loses” the proceeding pays for the full costs of the process. Allows registrar to choose between a third party “resolver” or the registry operator.

More Work Defining the FOA More specifics regarding the third party resolution process And other substantive issues from the public comment period… Working towards consensus …we need your help.

Definitions Definition; These are the precise statements of what certain words within the document actually mean. i.e. –“Administrative Contact” –“Losing Registrar” –“Consensus” (just kidding, no miracles ;) Goal: To provide a common frame of reference for discussion, implementation and ongoing execution

Questions? This proposal will be archived on the Web in MS-HTML