Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

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

Jeff and all former DNSO GA members,

  Hardly clear, but what is clear in your comments is that you believe:
1.) That such charges or costs should or would be borne by the
      Registrant only.

2.) That if Third parities handled these situations the costs would be
     higher than if the Registry/Registrars accessed the costs/fee.

  It seems reasonable and obvious that such absolutes are far
off the actual or possible mark.

  But of course such interests of registries would prefer that they
have no or very few actual responsibilities to the Registrant, while
at the same time find additional ways by which they can charge
additional fees to their registrants for proposed services that they
may or do not desire whether they like it or not...

  I call this sort of business behavior, what it is, a flim-flam...

  A more reasonable approach might be:

  It seems that such costs need limitations to the registrant, unless
the Registrant is at fault.  And that errant business behavior from
the registry needs severe penalties in financial terms so as to
discourage such behavior in the future or by other Registries.

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> You are absolutely correct.  I was referring to charges from the Registry.
> The Third party would charge more, but there would be no charges from the
> Registry.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:06 AM
> To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; dannyyounger@cs.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; icann board address
> Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees
>
> 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


--
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