RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Criteria

[Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com>]

We might also need to consider the issue of national regulation, which
wrongfully or rightly may be an obstacle to implementation of the
recommendations. 

Currently a few registrars are 'hiding' behind local consumer protection
regulation, thereby in effect blocking all transfers away. 
Incidentally, the practice is breaking even more 'serious' national (and
often EU-wide) regulation on consumer choice and free competition.

/n

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@veriSign.com] 
> Sent: 8. januar 2003 17:15
> To: 'ross@tucows.com'; nc-imptransfer@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Criteria
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> This is very helpful.  I would suggest that we consider 
> adding something
> like this, directed primarily at registrars who participate 
> in the NC-Imp:
> Is there evidence to indicate that there is strong support 
> among registrars?
> I think there is a broad enough representation on the NC-Imp 
> to get a good
> feel for this.  My presumption here is that registrars will 
> need to agree to
> an amendment to their agreements with registries and ICANN, 
> so if there is
> not strong support by registrars, it may be difficult to 
> implement the new
> policies/procedures.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Com Net Registry
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: nc-imptransfer@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Criteria
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The charter proposals makes the implication that those preparing an
> analysis as contemplated under the "Call for Analysis" will have to
> apply a set of feasibility criteria to the recommendations as part of
> the process. This in turn implies that the committee should probably
> provide the analysts with some criteria by which they can 
> conduct their
> review. I have taken the liberty of preparing the following 
> criteria in
> anticipation of this requirement. Hopefully this will save us some
> working time this afternoon. As with the earlier proposals, these
> probably could use some review and refinement by the group. I 
> hope that
> you all find this a useful way to get a head start on our work-load.
> 
> ---
> 
> Proposed Review Criteria
> 
> Each party conducting an analysis of the Transfer TF recommendations
> should apply these criteria to each recommendation based on 
> the results
> gathered from their own organization.
> 
> 1. Can the recommendation be proceduralized within your organization?
> 	1a. If yes, what system would you use to implement and
> administer the procedure?
> 	1b. If no, what are the obstacles preventing the
> proceduralization of the recommendation within your organization?
> 	1c. If the recommendation can be proceduralized, what level of
> conformance/deviance does your current system have to the 
> procedure you
> envision supporting the recommendation?
> 
> 2. If the recommendation can be proceduralized, what 
> resources would be
> required to implement and administer the procedure and system in your
> organization? (examples of typical resource requirements include the
> human, technical, experiental, etc. resources necessary to implement a
> project)
> 	2a. What costs are associated with these resources? (This should
> be specifically quantified, however terms such as 
> "Significant, based on
> the size of our organization and our current cash flow" or "Minimal
> based on past experience" would also be acceptable. The more specific,
> the more useful the answers will be to the implementation committee)
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> 
>  
>