Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Jeff, 

It continues to be your intent to draft transfers policy within the context 
of the registry-registrar agreement to which ICANN is not a signatory.  By 
deeming the proposal to constitute "new policy" your goal is to ensure that 
registries receive payment for adjudication services under the Prices for 
Registry Services clause.  This serves only your own self-interest.  
Meanwhile, registrants are not empowered to appeal to ICANN should their 
requested transfer be denied because ICANN in the context of this contract 
has no enforcement obligations.  

This is not a user-friendly approach, and user needs would better be served 
by placing the policy language within the Registrar Accreditation Agreement 
to which ICANN is indeed a party and in which they are obliged to take an 
enforcement role.  Your current plan makes no provision for registrant appeal 
(as only registrars may initiate the appeals process, and these registrars 
may choose not to invoke such process should they be daunted by the prospect 
of having to pay significant fees to a registry should their appeal fail).  
Again, user interests are not being put at the forefront of such discussion; 
rather the debate has centered solely upon which constituency gets stuck 
paying the bill for enforcement.  

Instead of seeing a concern for users, all that I am seeing is registries 
attempting to devise yet another way of making a buck.  
--
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