Re: [ga] Proposed Transfers Policy

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> "A contract without
> enforcement provisions does not suit the needs of the registrant community
> that must be protected from the continued prospect of registrar abuse."
>
> ICANN is not a legal enforcement organization according to Stuart Lynn. Who
> do you propose does the enforcement?

  The DOC/NTIA is responsible for enforcement.  ICANN is the
first level of oversight.

>
>
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> DannyYounger@cs.com
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: synthesis@videotron.ca
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; ross@tucows.com
> Subject: [ga] Proposed Transfers Policy
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> Please convey the following sentiments to the Transfers TF:
>
> The Registrar Constituency has proposed amending current contract language
> by
> adding one additional instance when a requested change of sponsoring
> Registrar may be denied, such instance referencing the circumstances
> described in the Registrar Transfer Statement of Best Practices document
> cited at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00059.doc
>
> These circumstances are predicated upon Losing Registrar arriving at a
> determination that the Gaining Registrar has not appropriately implemented
> the processes contemplated by this document.  Allowing the denial of
> transfer
> to rest solely upon a determination made by the Losing Registrar exposes the
> registrant to an unacceptable risk factor, as his rights to a decision free
> from arbitrary and capricious action are not guaranteed by this process.
>
> The argument has been put forth that the Losing Registrar may deny a
> transfer
> request only when either of the following conditions are satisfied:  it
> receives an express objection from a Registered Name holder or an individual
> who has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name Holder,
> or
> the Gaining Registrar fails to comply with the minimum standards and
> practices contemplated by this document and/or the relevant Registry
> Agreement.
>
> Such minimum standards call for "a written or electronic copy of reliable
> evidence of authorization by the Registered Name holder or an individual who
> has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name holder."
> Nowhere in this document is apparent authority defined, and evidence of
> authorization, either written or electronic, is subject to dispute based
> solely on Losing Registrar's reasons (including allegations of suspicious
> transaction patterns) and determination.
>
> While both Gaining and Losing registrars are imbued with many rights in this
> process, there are no rights to review or appeal accorded to the registrant.
>
> Further, if the Gaining Registrar fails to respond to the request from the
> Losing Registrar, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future
> transfer requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the
> Gaining
> Registrar can provide the Losing Registrar with a copy of the FOA as set
> forth in the Transfers document.  This places all other such registrants at
> risk of a denial of transfer solely based upon the failure of registrars to
> abide by their own best practices, again with no right of appeal.
>
> In similar fashion, if the Gaining Registrar provides evidence of compliance
> not consistent with the minimum standards and processes contemplated by this
> document, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future transfer
> requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the Gaining
> Registrar can satisfy the Losing Registrar that they have adopted the
> minimum
> standards and processes contemplated by this document.  Once more, this
> unacceptably places a potentially large class of registrants at the mercy of
> the unappealable decisions of Losing Registrars without due process
> provisions.
>
> The rights of registrants have not been considered by this document as
> tendered by the Registrars.  In addition to these concerns, registrants need
> to be mindful of the possibility of capricious use of registrar lock
> processes that have not been contemplated by this document.  There are no
> penalties proposed for a registrar failure to comply with the terms of the
> document, either monetary or by way of disaccreditation.  A contract without
> enforcement provisions does not suit the needs of the registrant community
> that must be protected from the continued prospect of registrar abuse.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html