Re: [nc-transfer] FW: Briefing on Legal Conditions forPolicyImplementation

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Jeff,
With respect, I believe I clearly stated that we do prescribe 'what' and that is
what we should be doing.
If you re-read the first line in my post it says "With respect to Transfers, the
way I see it, we are making recommendations
on *what* to change...the 'how to implement' is something we skated on a few
times and always specifically backed away from as far as I can remember."

The 'how' is what ICANN has to figure out. Do you have examples of the 'how'? If
not....


"Neuman, Jeff" wrote:

> Dan,
>
> With all due respect, the Transfers TF does prescribe to the Registrars and
> Registries "what" they must do.
>
> A few examples are that Registrars:
>
> 1)  must use a standard FOA before initiating a transfer
> 2)  must give out an Auth-code within 72 hours of request
> 3)  may not deny a transfer for:
>         i)      Nonpayment for a pending or future registration period
>         ii)     No response from the Registrant or Administrative contact
> unless the Losing Registrar shows evidence of Express           Objection
> from the Registrant or Administrative Contact as described in section 3.e.vi
>         iii)    Domain name in Registrar Lock Status
>         iv)     Domain name registration period time constraints other than
> during the first 60 days of initial registration.
>         v)      General payment defaults between registrar and business
> partners / affiliates in cases where the registrant for                 the
> domain in question has paid for the registration.
> 4)  must submit to alternate dispute resolution
>
> In addition, Registries must have a dispute mechanism (even if they are
> compensated for it)
>
> Now, all of these things may be good things and they all may be accepted by
> the Registry and Registrar communities, I just don't have enough feedback on
> these yet.  However, whether they are implemented through the Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement or whether they are implemented through the
> Registry-Registrar Agreements does not change the fact that there are new
> affirmative obligations on the Registrars and Registries.
>
> Again, let me stress that I am not offering a value judgment on whether
> these things are good or bad, but just an observation that we do prescribe
> the "what" as well as the "how."
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:synthesis@videotron.ca]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:31 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: Transfer TF (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] FW: Briefing on Legal Conditions for
> PolicyImplementation
>
> Marilyn,
> I have read the attached document, and at first glance see no where that we
> need to make any changes. It may be more relevant to the whois task force
> given the particular nature of that requirement but I dont feel at all
> qualified to make any statements
> on that issue.
>
> With respect to Transfers, the way I see it, we are making recommendations
> on *what* to change...the 'how to implement' is something we skated on a few
> times and always specifically backed away from as far as I can remember.
> If we map Louis' requirements in the document to the changes in Appendix A,
> I can't find anything that needs changing on the *what* front. What he
> appears to be discussing...is the *how* and the *can we?*  He has not come
> out and said "I dont think we
> should implement para x.xx.y.a (1)" so I have to assume there is nothing
> glaringly impossible or illegal that struck him in his role as General
> Counsel.
>
> So we are down from specifics that need be addressed...to generalities and
> possibilities and implementation issues.  Were we to change things...we
> would be changing recommendations.  I believe our task was to take input and
> formulate recommendations on
> changes...not to tell ICANN how to implement them.
>
> If our recommendations are accepted, I am sure they will find the right way
> to implement them as Louis Touton puts it..."to proceed in a manner that
> addresses the reasoned objections and concerns of these entities."  And if
> there are things we recommended
> that they cannot implement...so be it. At least we tried and came up with
> what we thought was best after considering every possible angle and (most
> important) taking input from wherever we could find it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
>
> > As I had indicated I would, I asked Louie to consult with us on the issues
> related to the contracts for implementation of a policy recommendation by
> registrars and/or registries.  He prepared the attached and forwarded to the
> Names Council last night.
> > Please review before our calls.
> >
> > We need to assess our recommendations against this legal clarification,
> and determine if there is additional work needed.
> >
> > I think it will be helpful, after we digest this, to be able to also
> consult with Louis Touton, General Counsel.
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                                               Name:
> general-counsel-briefing-20oct02.doc
> >    general-counsel-briefing-20oct02.doc       Type: WINWORD File
> (application/msword)
> >                                           Encoding: base64
> >                                        Description:
> general-counsel-briefing-20oct02.doc
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca