RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Criteria

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.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. 

Agreed - this would/should be picked up by criteria 1 - and raised by
those that are impacted by it during the call for analysis.



                       -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

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikolaj Nyholm [mailto:nikolajn@ascio.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:55 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'ross@tucows.com'; nc-imptransfer@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-imptransfer] Proposed Criteria
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> >  
> > 
>