Re: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

Hallo,

I have a problem with that document, well probably 2 :

1.) the general wording in some Para. only leads to additional work 
for lawyers.
just one Example:

3 r) IRDX transactions SHOULD be denied by the Losing 
Registrar if the Gaining Registrar has not implemented the 
minimum standards and practices contemplated by this 
document or the relevant Registry Agreement

for me its not clear what are the minimum standards. Are they 
somewhere marked in blue? or is it for everybody to choose 
"his" minimum standards ?

2.) According the consumer-protecting law in germany the "entity 
with apparent authority" has to notify the losing registrar of her/his 
decision, which sounds reasonable ( he/she has a contract with the 
losing registrar and has to give notice ), I personally had to learn that 
in the last month and to change my view and our process.

Obviously that is contrary to the statement:
1 b) Losing Registrars would authorize the transfer of such 
domain names in the absence of confirmation to the Losing 
Registrar by the Registered Name holder or an individual with 
the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name 
holder. 

 I already had problems with registrants, being in vacation or for 
whatever reason not answered our mail (in our previous version) 
and had the domains transferred.

Conclusion:
3 h) IRDX processes MUST maintain minimum standards of 
consumer protection, while taking into account the legal, 
linguistic and cultural differences of the domain name 
registration market, registrars, and Registered Name holders.

with other words : everybody is entitled to not care about that 
document.

siegfried



On 28 Aug 2002 at 12:16, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Members,
> 
> Please find to follow below a brief report on the status of the work of
> the Transfers TF as it relates to Transfers. Note that we are
> progressing reasonably well through a review of the Registrar
> Constituency proposal and have made a few modifications that I believe
> are amenable to the interests of Registrars. I had hoped at this point
> that we would have received feedback from the Registry Constituency
> given their renewed commitment to the issue, however I suspect that
> "real life" is somehow interfering with finalizing the revisions
> referenced below. I don't expect this delay to draw out in any
> meaningful way (we should be able to resolve it this afternoon during
> our call) but it needs to be brought to the attention of the
> constituency nonetheless.
> 
> The Task Force is still targetting the Shanghai meeting for tabling of
> our recommendations and we look to be in good shape at this point. If
> there are any questions between now and Amsterdam, I am happy to answer
> them as they come up. I expect to deliver a full progress report and
> draft recommendations during the timing of the Amsterdam meeting.
> 
> Thanks in advance, (and as noted below, apologies for the proprietary
> document format).
> 
> 
> 
>                        -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: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Please find attached a copy of the latest draft (version 1, revision 2,
> draft 2) of the IRDX proposal that the drafting team has been working on
> for the last two weeks or so.
> 
> During the call today, I would like to focus on a review of points 8
> through 15 (pages 14, 15 and 16) (highlighted in blue) with an eye
> towards ensuring that the process appropriately takes into account the
> needs of R'ants, R'rars and R'ry's. The feedback that the drafting team
> gathers through this review will be invaluable in providing us with the
> guidance that we need to complete our task.
> 
> I would also like to review the formal revisions made thus far to ensure
> that the language used appropriately captures the intent and sentiment
> of the larger group.
> 
> Please note that the revisions are not as sweeping as I had expected as
> we are still waiting for input on enforcement mechanisms from the
> Registry Constituency reps to the Drafting Team. I do not have an ETA
> for delivery of these details, so its not likely that we can cover them
> on the call, however the call will give us the capability to rework the
> deadlines in order to keep the document on track
> 
> If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me a note.
> 
> Apologies in advance for the proprietary document format.
> 
> 
> 
>                        -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
> 
> 
>  
>