RE: [council] IPC model protocol discussed at the last teleconference

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

Here are my comments on the proposed policy in light of the comments
from the last NC meeting.

I understand Ken's concern regarding an overly burdensome "second"
provision of the proposed policy.  As a means of compromise, would it be
easier to have each Registrar include a provision in their application
for domain names requiring an applicant to agree that it will not
attempt to transfer its domain name within sixty (pick a reasonable time
period) days of receiving a cease and desist letter or notice of dispute
concerning the domain name sought to be transferred.  This way, you
eliminate the need for sworn affidavits, and you provide a complaninant
with sufficient time to properly invoke the relevent dispute policy or
sue, if necessary, whereby the "first" provision kicks in.  In this
regard, I wonder whether we should add a sentence to the first provision
which would also prevent a registrant from transferring a domain name if
it is the subject of litigation.  The sixty (or whatever people feel is
reasonable) day time period also puts a time limit on how long such
transfers can be restricted.

During the last IPC meeting, I brought up the idea that if we could not
reach consensus on such a policy, the Registrars should at least be
prevented from granting a transfer request if the domain name requested
to be transferred was transferred to the Registrar less than thirty (or
pick whatever number is reasonable) days ago.  In other words, there
would be a two-registrar transfer limit during a predetermined period of
time.  While registrants should be able to transfer to a new Registrar
for legitimiate reasons (i.e., bad service, etc.), I think it is
reasonable to presume that anyone switching Registrars more than twice
in a thirty day period can be presumed to be "up to something".  Again,
with the time limitation, it forces the complainant to act quickly.  If
the complainant does not, the registrant is free to transfer after that
time.







-----Original Message-----
From: Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org [mailto:Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 11:15 AM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] IPC model protocol discussed at the last
teleconference


As you will remember, David, Ken and I are in the process of preparing
this
matter for the next teleconference. You will have received the report
from
the meeting that I sent out shortly after the conference concluded.
Several
of you made comments. In the interest of moving this forward, I would
appreciate your sending further comments and any suggested changes (Nii
and
Bill?). Moreover, if you could go back to your constituencies for
further
input this would also help to move the issue forward. I have sent the
report
on to my constituency for reactions to the points raised during the
conference.

Best regards, TED