[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ga] [Fwd: Message for Ted Shapio]

All,

  FYI -->  you really should read this!  But do so carefully...

Regards

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208





Ted - this message is set forth in the clear and as an attachment in rich text -

Dear Ted 

?

     Tod Cohen asked us to review your proposed resolution for the DNSO phone
conference call on Monday at today?s Intellectual Property Constituency meeting.
Our proposal for you is set forth below.
     Ted, Susan believes that you acknowledge that the DNSO procedural rules are
not entirely clear as to the best way to handle this proposal, but that we
believe that there exists an exigent circumstance which would enable the ICANN
Board to consider this proposal without initiation of the DNSO consensus process
under Article 6 (2)(g) of the ICANN by laws. .
     In addition to some editing, our main two recommendations were that we add
several ?Whereas? clauses to explain the reasons behind this proposed
resolution.  We agreed upon the text of the resolutions at the meeting and the
substantive points to be made in the ?Whereas? clauses.  For your information,
Tod Cohen (your US counterpart) gave Susan four points to be fleshed out.
Following the meeting, Susan Anthony, Marylee Jenkins and I were tasked with the
drafting of the introductory text and hope that we have captured all the
substantive points.  The second recommendation was to present protocol
addressing the time gap before a registrar?s dispute policy has been properly
invoked.  So without further ado, here it is:

MODEL PROTOCOL FOR REGISTRAR TO REGISTRAR HANDLING OF REQUESTS BY A DOMAIN NAME
          HOLDER TO CHANGE REGISTRARS UPON NOTICE OF A POSSIBLE CLAIM

     Certain test bed registrars are already operational and more are rapidly
coming on line with each passing week.

     There is presently evidence of forum shopping for registrars with different
dispute policies by domain name holders for improper purposes, including, but
not limited to seeking to avoid the assertion of rights by a third party to that
same domain name or the compliance with a cease and desist letter, or to avoid
the initiation of a dispute policy by the registrar from which the domain name
holder is seeking transfer, or the resolution of a properly invoked dispute
proceeding under the policy of the registrar from which the domain name holder
is seeking transfer.

     The existing dispute policies presently in place and policies being
discussed do not address any protocol for registrar to registrar handling of
requests by a domain name registrant to change registrars upon notice of a
possible claim.

     ICANN should be able to make decisions without having to wait for quarterly
meetings and a decision on this proposed model protocol is necessary to
discourage ongoing undesired forum shopping.

     ICANN already has made a decision that registrars must have a dispute
policy in place before they can become operational.  By resolution in Berlin,
ICANN has encouraged the test bed registrars to formulate a model policy and is
providing assistance to them in this regard.

     The Intellectual Property Constituency therefore offers the following
proposed model protocol for registrar to registrar handling of transfers for
second level domain name registration records.  We believe that this protocol
would assist in protecting intellectual property rights holders.  Importantly,
the proposed protocol does not call for hindering the use of the domain name by
the registrant assuming the dispute policy of their existing registrar so
permits.  The proposed protocol also attempts to address the time gap between
the receipt of a cease and desist letter by the domain name holder and the
invocation of a registrar?s dispute policy (assuming that policy does not
provide for the placing of a hold on the name).  During this time gap, a domain
name holder can seek to change registrars in order to avoid the invocation of
its initial register?s dispute policy.

     Finally, if the domain name holder seeking the transfer has been improperly
blocked by a third party from transferring registrars, that domain name holder
will not be precluded from availing themselves of any and all appropriate
remedies and actions.

     Once a registrar?s dispute policy has been properly invoked and the dispute
is pending and remains unresolved, the registration of second level domain name
registration record shall not transfer that domain name to another registrar
until the dispute is properly resolved.

     No registrar shall accept from any other registrar the transfer of a second
level domain name registration record without receiving from the registrant
seeking to transfer the domain name a sworn declaration or affirmation, under
penalties of perjury in the applicable law of the jurisdiction where taken, that
the domain name holder seeking such transfer has not received a cease and desist
letter or notice of dispute concerning the domain name sought to be transferred
from any third party.


(See attached file: Transfer Protocol.rtf)

Rich Text Format