<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update
Dear Nikolaj,
it is no question that
the owner and/or
the admin-c and/or
the billing-c
can start the procedure at joker.com.
If you assume that only the billing-c (=reseller in some cases) has
that ability I have to correct you.
siegfried
On 5 Sep 2002 at 15:16, Nikolaj Nyholm wrote:
> Siegfried,
>
> I agree with your interpretation, as it would be the spirit of the law as
> interpreted in most European countries.
>
> I do, however, question the practices that Joker has implemented to adhere
> to this legislation.
>
>
> You currently request the holder of the Joker 'servicezone' account
> (typically your reseller) to log in in order to open a window of 10 days to
> perform a transfer.
>
> The 'servicezone' account holder is in your words below the one having
> "apparent authority", however you seem to ignore the rights of the
> registrant, who for the most part don't have access to the 'servicezone'
> account.
>
> What if your reseller has gone bankrupt and the Registrant (who not only has
> apparent authority, but AUTHORITY) subsequently wishes to transfer a domain
> name?
>
>
> We have a current case where the domain names of a large German publication
> is being held 'hostage' by the bankruptcy of your reseller.
>
>
> Are you not here not only misinterpreting the rights of those with apparent
> authority, but also breaching some of the basic legislations on free
> competition as interpreted by both ICANN, Germany and the European Union?
>
> Could you send that on to your lawyer because they apparently disagree with
> mine?
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Nikolaj Nyholm
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Siegfried Langenbach [mailto:svl@nrw.net]
> > Sent: 5. september 2002 14:49
> > To: ross@tucows.com
> > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team
> > Status Update
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|