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

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

Hallo Ross,

I had to wait until the lawyer returned..therefore the delay of my 
answer.

I think the problem boils down to the question :

Is the lack of answer of a customer to be interpreted as ACK ?
German ( and I guess those of a lot other countries in europe as 
well ) law knows very few cases in which that could be assumed. In 
general NO.

Well, not asking him es even worse.

siegfried



On 30 Aug 2002 at 13:43, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Siefried - also some clarifications for you ;)
> 
> > 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 ?
> 
> Bad wording. The document is the minimum standard.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I would need to see some more of this from an official source in order
> to start working in the exceptions. As it stands, this runs contrary to
> ICANN's current policy on the matter and as such should not be analysed
> lightly. As discussed yesterday, registrars have an obligation to uphold
> their contract with ICANN in accordance with the law - not make
> exceptions to their performance of the contract in accordance with the
> law. I suspect that there is a reasonable compromise that would allow
> you, and others in your position, to abide by your local law without
> running contrary to ICANN policy. In order to affirm this however, I
> would need some concrete citations or pointers to where I could find
> them.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> We've since reworded this passage, but neither the intent nor the
> statement are meant to imply what you have stated.
> 
> The clause now reads: "IRDX processes MUST take into account the legal,
> linguistic and cultural differences of the domain name registration
> market, registrars, and Registered Name holders."
> 
> I call this the "Connelly Clause" as Bob was quite insistent that
> however the process is implemented that his Japanese registrants didn't
> receive any unreadable instructions or forms in English :). In other
> words, as this clause is part of the principles (which were drafted
> prior to the processes being determined), it is solely intended to state
> that whatever processes are implemented in order to support the
> transfers policy must support the needs of the global registrant - not
> the local ones.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
>                        -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: Siegfried Langenbach [mailto:svl@nrw.net] 
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:34 AM
> > To: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrar Constituency'
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team 
> > Status Update
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>