[ga] Re: rc-irdx-090302-v1r2d7.doc

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Ross, the draft language still uses the phrase "the ICANN DNSO Registrars 
Constituency proposes that member Registrars voluntarily adopt the following 
proposal".

Doesn't all of your work to resolve the issue of transfers go into the toilet 
if a certain large registrar decides not to voluntarily adopt the proposal?  

As a matter of policy, I don't want to leave compliance to the arbitrary 
discretion of the registrar.  What is called for is a binding solution, a 
"consensus policy" that is obligatory upon all registrars and which is 
enforceable by ICANN.  This would mean placing the policy language into the 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is a signatory instead of 
allowing it to remain as an exhibit within the registry-registrar agreements 
to which ICANN is not a signatory.

As ICANN has recently committed itself to enforcement of the RAA, (see 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03sep02.htm ) the financial 
burden of enforcement would then not fall upon the shoulders of either the 
registrars or registries, but rather upon ICANN itself -- which is a win-win 
for both of your constituencies.  

I would like to see a recommendation emerge to relocate the policy language 
into the RAA where it properly belongs. 


--
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