RE: [registrars] Pandora's Box (as it relates to transfers)

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

Thanks for the note Patrick - a few comments in response interspersed...

> My only concern would be : what guarantees then that ICANN 
> will enforce contracts (more than now) ?

One of the assumptions of the proposal is that given an explicit
mandate, ICANN would be better prepared to perform. Currently, the sense
that I get is that this mandate is unclear leading to the less than
explicit guarantee's that we have now. There is of course no guarantee,
but rather small hope ;)

> A scheme like one already exists for UDRP (arbitrators 
> appointed by ICANN, then dealing with cases), may be of interest.

That would be an interesting twist - ICANN oversight, third party
execution...

> 
> As for the universal transfer policy, it may not be so easy 
> to achieve, since it has ties with the technical part (the protocol
> used) and regarding transfers, EPP and RRP are very different.
> 

Agreed - the current policy proposal is very inclusive of protocol
considerations. I would presume that if ratified, it would then be
incumbent on the registry operators (current and future) to ensure that
their implementations are compliant.


                       -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