Re: [nc-transfer] Call to Action...

[James Love <james.love@cptech.org>]

David, does the IPC favor a period where the orginal domain holder can still 
get the domain back, even after it has expired?


Jamie

Safran, David wrote:
> In addition to Ross's comments, I think it is worth noting that as a
> "Transfers" task force, we need to deal with that issue and it seems to be
> the one relative to which we have made the least progress (in my opinion
> having been unnecessarily side-track by the apparent authority issue).  In
> the IPC meeting today, the problem of registrars renewing expired domains on
> their own behalf and then transferring them to a third party instead of
> returning the expired domain to the registry was raised as a significant
> problem.  I think that my proposal would address that problem by requiring
> an expired domain name to be returned to the Registry at the end of the
> redemption grace period; however, I pose the question as to whether such
> behavior should also be addressed in the transfer policy itself as being an
> improper renewal-transfer?
>   
> David S. Safran
> Nixon Peabody LLP 
> 8180 Greensboro Drive
> Suite 800
> McLean, VA 22102
> Office:  703.770.9315
> Fax:  703.770.9400
> dsafran@nixonpeabody.com
> 
> This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the
> message from your email system. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Call to Action...
> 
> 
> I've noticed that participation has been waning lately. Despite sporadic
> posts to the mailing lists, call attendance has dropped significantly
> and there are task force members that I have not heard from in months.
> 
> This is unacceptable to the members of the constituency I represent.
> Part of the deal is that we commit to solving the issues before us in a
> cooperative manner - even if that means hunkering down for the long
> haul.
> 
> To date, I have received no comment on the registrar constituency
> transfer proposal - despite repeated solicitations and the fact that it
> has been on the table for many, many weeks. I have also seen no comment
> on David's proposal regarding deletes that was tabled earlier this week.
> Should the chair assume that these documents have the consensus support
> of the TF and forward them to the NC as the formal policy
> recommendations of the TF?
> 
> There are also some other questions that we need to take a look at,
> *now*...
> 
> 1) Is there a need for a standardized registered name deletion policy?
> If so, what do we need to do to arrive at that policy? What steps would
> need to be taken to have it adopted by all accredited registrars? What
> role do the registries play in this? What might a policy of this nature
> look like?
> 
> 2) Should the TF be recommending a consensus policy track on the WLS? Is
> a larger policy/process needed to deal with future registry services of
> this nature? What might a process like this look like?
> 
> We have a face to face meeting next week - hopefully we can get some
> serious work done towards answering these questions and deal with the
> outstanding policy proposals.
> 
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>  
> 
> 



-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040