Dear Ted –

	Tod Cohen asked us to review your proposed resolution for the DNSO phone conference call on Monday at today’s Intellectual Property Constituency meeting.  Our proposal for you is set forth below.  
	Ted, Susan believes that you acknowledge that the DNSO procedural rules are not entirely clear as to the best way to handle this proposal, but that we believe that there exists an exigent circumstance which would enable the ICANN Board to consider this proposal without initiation of the DNSO consensus process under Article 6 (2)(g) of the ICANN by laws. .
In addition to some editing, our main two recommendations were that we add several clauses to explain the reasons behind this proposed resolution.  We agreed upon the text of the proposed protocol at the meeting and the substantive points to be made in support of our proposal.  For your information, Tod Cohen (your US counterpart) gave Susan four points to be fleshed out.  Following the meeting, Susan Anthony, Marylee Jenkins and I were tasked with the drafting of the introductory text and hope that we have captured all the substantive points.  The second recommendation was to present protocol addressing the time gap before a registrar’s dispute policy has been properly invoked.  So without further ado, here it is:

MODEL PROTOCOL FOR REGISTRAR TO REGISTRAR HANDLING OF REQUESTS BY A DOMAIN NAME HOLDER TO CHANGE REGISTRARS UPON NOTICE OF A POSSIBLE CLAIM

	Certain test bed registrars are already operational and more are rapidly coming on line with each passing week.

	There is presently evidence of forum shopping for registrars with different dispute policies by domain name holders for improper purposes, including, but not limited to seeking to avoid the assertion of rights by a third party to that same domain name or the compliance with a cease and desist letter, or to avoid the initiation of a dispute policy by the registrar from which the domain name holder is seeking transfer, or the resolution of a properly invoked dispute proceeding under the policy of the registrar from which the domain name holder is seeking transfer.

The existing dispute policies presently in place and policies being discussed do not address any protocol for registrar to registrar handling of requests by a domain name registrant to change registrars upon notice of a possible claim.

	ICANN should be able to make decisions without having to wait for quarterly meetings and a decision on this proposed model protocol is necessary to discourage ongoing undesired forum shopping.

	ICANN already has made a decision that registrars must have a dispute policy in place before they can become operational.  By resolution in Berlin, ICANN has encouraged the test bed registrars to formulate a model policy and is providing assistance to them in this regard. 

	The Intellectual Property Constituency therefore offers the following proposed model protocol for registrar to registrar handling of transfers for second level domain name registration records.  We believe that this protocol would assist in protecting intellectual property rights holders.  Importantly, the proposed protocol does not call for hindering the use of the domain name by the registrant assuming the dispute policy of their existing registrar so permits.  The proposed protocol also attempts to address the time gap between the receipt of a cease and desist letter by the domain name holder and the invocation of a registrar’s dispute policy (assuming that policy does not provide for the placing of a hold on the name).  During this time gap, a domain name holder can seek to change registrars in order to avoid the invocation of its initial register’s dispute policy.

Finally, if the domain name holder seeking the transfer has been improperly blocked by a third party from transferring registrars, that domain name holder will not be precluded from availing themselves of any and all appropriate remedies and actions.

	Once a registrar’s dispute policy has been properly invoked and the dispute is pending and remains unresolved, the registration of second level domain name registration record shall not transfer that domain name to another registrar until the dispute is properly resolved.

	No registrar shall accept from any other registrar the transfer of a second level domain name registration record without receiving from the registrant seeking to transfer the domain name a sworn declaration or affirmation, under penalties of perjury in the applicable law of the jurisdiction where taken, that the domain name holder seeking such transfer has not received a cease and desist letter or notice of dispute concerning the domain name sought to be transferred from any third party.