Re: [nc-transfer] Lastest Document: Draft Complete ver 2, rev. 0, draft 0

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I do believe that Sections B & C do represent "new policy" for registry
> operators.  I am not saying that we will not carry these out, but they
> certainly would represent new policy operations not contemplated by the
> current Registry Registrar Agreements.  It appears to me that by adding
your
> explanatory statement, you are trying to counter Mike Palage's argument
that
> if something is considered "new policy" that Registry Operators would be
> able to recover any fees.  By stating these are "NOT" new policies, you
are
> trying to state that Registries cannot recover their costs.
>

While Michael's arguments do favor the Registry Constituency over the
Registrar Constituency, they ignore the fundamental fact that Registries
have specific obligations to Registrars under a separate agreement that does
provide Registrars with standing. On the other hand, if you are stating that
registries have no obligation to enforce their agreements with registrants
and registrars, then perhaps that *is* an issue that needs to be dealt with
through consensus policy.

> However the issues of fees works out, the TF draft should not opine as to
> what is or what is not "new policy."  That is for the ICANN staff, the
> Registry Operators and Registrars to work out as set forth in the Registry
> Agreements.  Therefore, I would ask that that language be removed.

I'll leave it to the chair and the NC to determine what is and isn't the
scope of any particular task force. I will state however that it is entirely
consistent with the mandate of the drafting team to table an annotated
version of a document with the larger group in order to ensure the document
is communicated clearly. This specific note is simply a statement of
intent - the exact same intent that you and I have been discussing for the
last four weeks (the same four weeks that puts us behind the schedule that
you posted concern about earlier). You specifically represented to me at
least on one occasion that this was specifically the type of enforcement
that Neulevel at least would be willing to undertake under its existing
contract.

If your position has changed or it has somehow been miscommunicated, or if
you specifically feel that I have mispresented the previously agreed upon
intent of passages B & C, then lets table this for discussion with the TF -
it is my strong preference not to re-open the document at this point.


                       -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: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
To: "'Ross Wm. Rader'" <ross@tucows.com>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Lastest Document: Draft Complete ver 2, rev. 0,
draft 0


> In your draft, in the dispute resolution section, you state:
>
> "[Note: This section attempts to create a process by which registrars
could
> seek enforcement on specific issues directly with the appropriate registry
> operator and, if necessary, escalate to a "Dispute Resolution Panel" as a
> final measure in the case of disputes that were not clear violations of
> policy. Concerning Sections B & C specifically are clauses clarifying the
> existing role that Registry Operators take in the enforcement process.
While
> it does bring additional rigor to the process, it does not introduce
> generally new responsibilities upon the Registry Operator nor create new
> policy.]"
>
> I do believe that Sections B & C do represent "new policy" for registry
> operators.  I am not saying that we will not carry these out, but they
> certainly would represent new policy operations not contemplated by the
> current Registry Registrar Agreements.  It appears to me that by adding
your
> explanatory statement, you are trying to counter Mike Palage's argument
that
> if something is considered "new policy" that Registry Operators would be
> able to recover any fees.  By stating these are "NOT" new policies, you
are
> trying to state that Registries cannot recover their costs.
>
> However the issues of fees works out, the TF draft should not opine as to
> what is or what is not "new policy."  That is for the ICANN staff, the
> Registry Operators and Registrars to work out as set forth in the Registry
> Agreements.  Therefore, I would ask that that language be removed.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 4:14 PM
> To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Lastest Document: Draft Complete ver 2, rev. 0,
> draft 0
>
>
> Folks,
>
> Please find attached what I believe to be the last iteration of the
drafting
> team's work on the IRDX recommendations. Thanks to each of you that
> specifically helped out with the drafting and to all of you that provided
> input.
>
> If there are any glaring errors, please let me know and I will try to
figure
> out how to rectify without upsetting the process any further.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>                        -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
>
>
>