1. IRTP Part D PDP WG Items for Review

2. Items for Review Policy Development Process WG Charter GNSO WG Guidelines

3. GNSO Policy Development Process 3

4. 4

13. PDP WG Requirements Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements Formally seek the opinion of other ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations early on in the process Development of Initial Report & Public Comment Review of Comments Final Report

14. Further Reading 14 Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA PDP Manual - http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp- manual-16dec11-en.pdfhttp://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp- manual-16dec11-en.pdf New PDP Overview - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/3117455 7/New+PDP+Overview+- +25+January+2012.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1334243 734850 https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/3117455 7/New+PDP+Overview+- +25+January+2012.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1334243 734850

15. WG Charter & Issue Report 15

16. WG Charter 16 The IRTP is an existing consensus policy developed through the GNSO’s policy development process (PDP) and is currently under review by the GNSO. Six questions related to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy as outlined in the Final Issue Report:Final Issue Report – 4 Questions addressing the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) – 1 Question related to penalties for IRTP Violations – 1 Question related to the need for FOAs

17. TDRP 17 Mechanism for resolving disputes between registrars Two possible steps a registrar can take: 1.File a dispute with the relevant Registry Operator 2.File a dispute with a Dispute Resolution Panel Second level filing may be used as the first option or as appeal Either the Gaining Registrar or Registrar of Record can file a dispute by submitting a ‘Request For Enforcement’ (RFE) RFE must include detailed information about the domain, the alleged violation as well as the remedy being sought

18. 18 TDRP Timeline / Workflow

19. TDRP Related Questions 19 a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions Currently no reporting requirements ‘TDRP enforcement seems inconsistent and does not rely on past precedent as intended’ gTLD Registries are required to provide information per registrar on the number of disputes filed, but this does not include information on individual cases UDRP does require that decisions need to be published Should WG recommend introducing reporting requirements, it may also want to consider how to handle the display and approval of non-public information regarding transfers

20. TDRP Related Questions 20 b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred Staff’s assumption that this issue relates to a situation whereby a registration changes registrars multiple times before or during the time a TDRP has been filed This would create multiple layers the dispute proceeding, for example, first transfer may have violated the TDRP while subsequent transfers were in compliance

21. TDRP Related Questions 21 c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf) There is currently no provision for the registrant to file a dispute under the TDRP ‘ICANN receives some complaints from registrants about registrars who choose note to initiate a dispute on their behalf’ Further info on the extent of the issue and how the current policy as well as parties involved would be impacted needed Should the TDRP also be extended to cover ‘change of registrant’ disputes as per IRTP Part C?

22. TDRP Related Questions 22 d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants. ‘Further education is necessary for registrants and registrars to understand where they should take their initial complaints and what the ensuing process will entail’. Review current ICANN features and information as well as information provided by registrars. This issue should be reviewed in conjunction with previous question.

23. Penalties for IRTP Violations 23 e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy ‘Existing penalties are not sufficient deterrent’ (2006) New RAA was negotiated (2009) which includes graduated sanctions in the case of non-compliance with ICANN policies Review this issue in the context of sanctions available under the 2009 RAA and determine whether additional provisions / penalties for specific violations are still required

24. Need for FOAs 24 f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. Issue raised by the IRTP Part C WG: the use of AuthInfo codes has become the de facto mechanism for securing domain transfers and thereby replaced some of the reasons for the creation of the standard FOA. FOA used to provide express authorization by Registered Name Holder or Admin Contact for transfer. Registrar is responsible for keeping copies of documentation, including the FOA, which may be required for filing and supporting a dispute. There may no longer be a technical need for FOA, but it also serves other functions such as informing the Registrant that a transfer has been requested as well as possible evidence

25. Other information 25 Decision-making methodology Problem / Issue escalation & resolution processes Staffing and organization See https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/3.+WG+Charte r https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/3.+WG+Charte r

26. GNSO Working Group Guidelines 26

27. GNSO WG Guidelines 27 The objective of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines is to assist Working Groups to optimize productivity and effectiveness The main elements of importance to Working Group members covered are: – First meeting of the Working Group – Working Group Member Roles and Responsibilities – Use of sub-teams, briefings and subject matter experts – Participation and Representativeness – Process integrity, Behavior and norms – Standard Methodology for Making Decisions – Appeal process – Communication and collaboration tools – Products & Output

28. Further Reading 28 GNSO Working Group Guidelines Summary - http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines- 06apr11-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines- 06apr11-en.pdf GNSO Working Group Guidelines - http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines- 07apr11-en.pdfhttp://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines- 07apr11-en.pdf

29. Questions 29

30. Thank You