Re: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution

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

Grant - notes interspersed.

> policy should be implemented through, I take it that the reason that there
> is support for the Accreditation Contract, is because this is the only
> contract with the Registrars that ICANN is a party to and hence would be
in
> a position to exercise any enforcement.

As I mentioned on the call, one of the key requirements is that we a) have
implement one policy across all relevant TLDs, b) that enforcement of this
policy is conducted by one party (ie, the relevant registry operator
escalating to the Dispute Resolution Panel). The underlying requirement, as
far as the registrars see it, is as I layed out on last week's call "... it
came down to concern for consistency, not only consistency as it relates to
enforcement but also consistency in the policies so that we don't have
multiple implementations based on multiple registries. "

> 1) That the only contract between Registrars and ICANN is through the
> Accreditation contract

Based on my understanding, yes.

> 2) If (1) is true, what is your view as to the importance of having
> transfers as part of a contract with Registrars in which ICANN is a party?

Answering the question of which parties should have standing as it relates
to contractual enforcement is less important than ensuring that those
parties that need to invoke enforcement proceedings can. Technically, it
would be useful to be able to fall back on more traditional judiciary
enforcement (ie - the courts) if the policy and enforcement fall apart.
Practically speaking, ensuring that we can get the complaints resolved
before we need to invoke legal processes is more important. As a result,
assisting the staff in finding a balance between the two options would be
useful.

> PS I wasn't on the call this morning (my time), are we having calls in
> Marilyn's absence?

It was my impression that we were supposed to have a call at the regularly
scheduled time yesterday to go over the final bits of the draft. However
when I called in, the bridge was not functioning. If the TF would like to
review the final draft, then we should make arrangements (as soon as
possible preferably) for a call this week.

> Is there a call next week?

I'm proceeding on the basis that there is ;)

> Have we settled and agreed the draft of the IRDX to have it go out?

As per my earlier posts, I believe that the document is now final in all
respects.

> Who will post it to the NC?

Someone from the TF who sits on the NC? Perhaps...mmmm....Grant? Marilyn?


                       -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: "Grant Forsyth" <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
To: "'Ross Wm. Rader'" <ross@tucows.com>; "Grant Forsyth"
<Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>; "'Neuman, Jeff'"
<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution


> Ross and Jeff I concur with both your approaches.. but
> As I read the submission on the question as to which contract the transfer
> policy should be implemented through, I take it that the reason that there
> is support for the Accreditation Contract, is because this is the only
> contract with the Registrars that ICANN is a party to and hence would be
in
> a position to exercise any enforcement.
>
> Please confirm:
> 1) That the only contract between Registrars and ICANN is through the
> Accreditation contract
> 2) If (1) is true, what is your view as to the importance of having
> transfers as part of a contract with Registrars in which ICANN is a party?
>
> Thanks
> PS I wasn't on the call this morning (my time), are we having calls in
> Marilyn's absence?
> Is there a call next week?
> Have we settled and agreed the draft of the IRDX to have it go out?
> Who will post it to the NC?
>
>
> Grant Forsyth
> Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
> TelstraClear
> Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
> Private Bag 92143
> AUCKLAND
> ph +64 9 912 5759
> fx + 64 9 912 4077
> Mb 021 952 007
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 October, 2002 03:50
> To: Grant Forsyth; 'Neuman, Jeff'; nc-transfer@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution
>
>
> My preference would be directive as to the intent and requirements that we
> desire, but to remain silent as to implementation. If we can effectively
> describe what we aim to achieve, the staff will be able to make an
> appropriate determination of where this should live without being shackled
> by a resolution that may or may not adequately deal with all of the
> contractual issues.
>
> What I mean is, we ultimately want a stable policy that is implemented
once
> across all relevant TLDs. It may be that there is more than one way for
the
> staff to contractually skin this - we should provide them with as much
> flexibility in this regard as we possibly can.
>
> In reviewing the IRDX document with Dan, he seemed to indicate that this
> would be the most appropriate way to proceed. While he wasn't providing me
> with official guidance, his comments were clear.
>
> In all cases when we provide instructions to others we should strive to
make
> our requirements as clear as possible while leaving the fulfillment of
those
> requirements as a matter for the implementers.
>
>
>                        -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: "Grant Forsyth" <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
> To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:54 PM
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution
>
>
> > Jeff et al
> > I would prefer, at this stage, to stick to the wording that I "drafted"
on
> > the call, namely:
> > 2. The ICANN Board should direct the ICANN staff to implement the policy
> > through contract amendments to the [ICANN Accredited Registrar]
> > [Registry-Registrar] contract(s) to give effect to the recommendations
in
> > the IRDX report
> >
> > I think there is a desire, as expressed through the email discussions,
> that
> > we (ultimately the NC) be explicit as to how we "direct" the staff
> regarding
> > which contract the transfers policy is enacted through - so as to
address
> > concerns over ICANN's involvement.
> >
> > Jeff's amendment is silent on which contract - but can also be read to
> mean
> > the ICANN Registrar Accreditation contract, as this is the only contract
> > (that I have been made aware of) in which ICANN is a party.
> >
> > Does the TF think:
> >
> > A)  we need to be explicit as to the contract in which the policy is
> > enacted?
> >
> > B) that, if yes to A), then is there a preference to the contract?
> >
> > C) that Jeff's wording can only be read as the ICANN Registrar
> Accreditation
> > contract - as this is the only contract in which ICANN is a party to?
> >
> >
> >
> > Wording suggestion for additional point in the resolution which will
> > hopefully provide a single recommendation to address 3,4,5 as noted in
my
> > draft and also is wide enough for the staff to develop the specific
> wording
> > in conjunction with the Registrars.
> >
> > 3. Implementation should include the Registrars and ICANN staff together
> > developing a regular audited Registrar self reporting of their
performance
> > in actioning transfer requests and the resultant outcomes. This
reporting
> to
> > be public and monitored by ICANN for the purpose of contract enforcement
> and
> > review of the transfers policy.
> >
> > Hope that is clear, I look forward to fellow TF members comments
> >
> > Grant Forsyth
> >
> > [Grant Forsyth]  -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
> > Sent: Thursday, 03 October, 2002 06:29
> > To: 'nc-transfer@dnso.org'
> > Subject: [nc-transfer] How about this for Resolution No. 2
> >
> >
> >
> > The NC Resolves that the ICANN Board should direct the ICANN staff to
> > conduct negotiations toward appropriate revisions to agreements between
> > ICANN and the gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars as appropriate to
> > implement the recommendations in the IRDX report.
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Director, Law & Policy
> > NeuStar, Inc.
> > Loudoun Tech Center
> > 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> > Building X
> > Sterling, VA 20166
> > p: (571) 434-5772
> > f:  (571) 434-5735
> > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us>
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AS WE HAVE MOVED
> FROM
> > OUR WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE.  THANKS.
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the
> > personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This
> message
> > may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such
is
> > privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
> > intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the
> intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail
> > message and any attachments hereto in error and that any review,
> > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify
> > us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
> >
> >
> >
> >