RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

Let me make the following points:

1)  I have let you misspell my name on far too many occasions -- It is
NEUMAN not Nueman.

2)  In a transfer dispute, how can the Registry be at fault?  The Registry
merely takes a commands from the gaining and/or losing registrars.  It has
no interaction with the Registrant in the Transfer process.

3)  Would you rather that third parties handle all disputes and that the
Registries stay completely out of it?  In the Transfers Task Force work, the
registries agreed to have limited involvement in trying to resolve disputes
(so long as their costs were covered).  Are you saying that if the
registries step in (to help resolve a dispute - to help registrants and
registrars) that we should take on liability.  If that is the case, no
registry in their right mind would step in.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:22 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; ga@dnso.org; icann board address
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees


Jeff and all former DNSO GA members,

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> I am sorry, Jeff, I must have missed something.  Explain to me why the
> Registry should pay for a dispute process that involves Registrars and
> Registrants.

  If the registries and/or the Registrars are going to handle these disputes
themselves, and they, the registries are at fault, than they should bare
the expense.  I Believe I stated either the Registry OR the Registrar
in my comments below, Mr. Nueman.  If you read my comments
below closely you will have noticed I stated:
"In some cases that will be the Registry or Registrar.  In others it
will be the Registrant. "

  Hence in the future, Mr. Nueman, it may be advantageous for you
to read what I said closely so as not to accidentally or otherwise
misconstrue what I did state clearly and concisely...

  Thank you for your cooperation in such instances in advance,
for the future.  >;)

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:36 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Nancy J. Victory; Don Evans; Clyde Ensslin; Kathy
> Smith
> Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; ga@dnso.org; icann board address
> Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees
>
> Chuck and all Former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,
>
>   Your exactly right here Chuck!  And that someone that must pay
> for handling these disputes, should be the party at fault.  Or
> "Looser Pays".  In some cases that will be the Registry or
> Registrar.  In others it will be the Registrant.  However what
> Mr. Nueman seems to be suggesting is that the Registrant
> ALWAYS should pay, regardless of whom is in the Wrong
> and let the Registry access what they should pay to boot!
> THAT is hardly equitable, fair, and I would argue it is
> illegal as well..  Such a suggestion is at the very least,
> unethical...
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Jeff,
> >
> > If a transfer dispute was handled by a neutral 3rd party, I would expect
> the
> > charges to be considerably higher than if done by a registry.  Third
> parties
> > aren't going to do it for free and someone has to pay for it.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:19 AM
> > To: dannyyounger@cs.com
> > Cc: Neuman, Jeff; ga@dnso.org; icann board address
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees
> >
> > Danny, to be honest the issues as to what fees (if any) to be charged by
a
> > Registry for implementing a dispute process regarding transfer
complaints
> > was not addressed by the Transfer Task Force or Implementation Committee
> > except that it is understood that a Registry should be able to recover
its
> > costs for administering the disputes.
> >
> > I do not mean to "punt" this issue, but for now, since the actual scope
of
> > the dispute process has not been set out and the rules and procedures
have
> > not been drafted, it is impossible for us as registries to tell you what
> > such a charge (if any) would be.  To give you an example, if a Registry
is
> > only required to merely look at the transaction records and then make a
> > determination as to whether it appeared on its face that a transfer was
> > authorized, this would obviously cost a lot less to administer than if
we
> > were required to take in written pleadings (or something similar) with
> each
> > party making arguments and make some sort of determination as to which
> > position is correct.
> >
> > If these disputes were presided over by neutral third parties (rather
than
> > the registries), then obviously there would be no charge.
> >
> > My recommendation on going forward would be for a group of interested
> > parties to take a stab at a first comprehensive draft asto exactly how
> this
> > dispute process would work, what remedies could be sought, who pays the
> > costs, whether penalties could be assessed, etc.  Once that is complete,
I
> > believe the Registries (if we are the dispute providers) can make an
> > assessment to any associated costs.
> >
> > I hope that helps.
> >
> > DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff,
> > >
> > > Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in the
Transfers
> > > Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation indicates, a
> > > dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the
> > > presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for such
> > services.
> > > As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a registry has
set
> an
> > > initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the registrant
> to
> > the
> > > full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars
continuing
> > to
> > > screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers dispute
> resolution
> > > process.
> > >
> > > As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address this
> issue,
> > > could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee to be set
> by
> > a
> > > Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the
level
> of
> > > extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers
> > dispute
> > > process.
> > > --
> > > 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > ================================================================
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> >
> > --
> > 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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> ================================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

--
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