[nc-transfer] Fw: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

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

Folks,

I'm forwarding this to the list not to get a rise out of Jeff (I can do that
on my own ;) but to recirculate the idea that we may wish to make a
recommendation that the transfers policy best lives within the ICANN
Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Many registrars that I have spoken to
support this idea - not sure how the rest of the community feels about it.
It would have the effect of creating a universal policy rather than several
registry specific implementations.

Thoughts?


                       -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: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <michael@palage.com>; <ross@tucows.com>;
<ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency


> Jeff,
>
> It continues to be your intent to draft transfers policy within the
context
> of the registry-registrar agreement to which ICANN is not a signatory.  By
> deeming the proposal to constitute "new policy" your goal is to ensure
that
> registries receive payment for adjudication services under the Prices for
> Registry Services clause.  This serves only your own self-interest.
> Meanwhile, registrants are not empowered to appeal to ICANN should their
> requested transfer be denied because ICANN in the context of this contract
> has no enforcement obligations.
>
> This is not a user-friendly approach, and user needs would better be
served
> by placing the policy language within the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement
> to which ICANN is indeed a party and in which they are obliged to take an
> enforcement role.  Your current plan makes no provision for registrant
appeal
> (as only registrars may initiate the appeals process, and these registrars
> may choose not to invoke such process should they be daunted by the
prospect
> of having to pay significant fees to a registry should their appeal fail).
> Again, user interests are not being put at the forefront of such
discussion;
> rather the debate has centered solely upon which constituency gets stuck
> paying the bill for enforcement.
>
> Instead of seeing a concern for users, all that I am seeing is registries
> attempting to devise yet another way of making a buck.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>