Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

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

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