Re: [registrars] Re: [nc-transfer] TF Recs Ver. 1 Draft 2 Rev. 9

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

> charges. As I have stated in the past, Registries have better contracts
that
> allow for protection against cost increases associated with ICANN policy.
> Registrars have no such contractual safeguard. As I stated over 18 months
> ago, the proper recourse for solving this problem was clarification of
> existing contractual ambiguities between contracting parties.

The terms of the Registry/ICANN contracts haven't changed over the last 18
months.

Further, your interpretation is questionable. Are you saying that under the
current contracts, the Registry operators have no obligation to enforce the
terms of their contracts with Registrars? Are you also implying that
Registrars *should* compensate Registrars for this "service"?

If there is a counterproposition that I am missing here, then lets hear it -
time is running out for this TF.

Thanks,


                     -rwr




Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: [nc-transfer] TF Recs Ver. 1 Draft 2 Rev. 9


> Ross,
>
> Under Paragraph 4.4 of the Standard Registry contract, if this proposal
was
> to be enforced as an ICANN policy, then the Registries are contractually
> able to recoup their expenses AND make a reasonable profit. Therefore,
> unless a registry volunteers to bear these costs (I am not holding my
> breath), they will contractually be able to charge for these services.
Since
> registrars are their customers, we are the likely party to bear these
> charges. As I have stated in the past, Registries have better contracts
that
> allow for protection against cost increases associated with ICANN policy.
> Registrars have no such contractual safeguard. As I stated over 18 months
> ago, the proper recourse for solving this problem was clarification of
> existing contractual ambiguities between contracting parties.
>
> Mike
>
>
> 4.4. Pricing Adjustments Arising from New or Revised Specifications or
> Policies. The maximum prices stated in Appendix G shall be increased
through
> an amendment to this Agreement as approved by ICANN and Registry Operator,
> such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, to reflect demonstrated
> increases in the net costs of providing Registry Services arising from (A)
> new or revised ICANN specifications or policies adopted after the
Effective
> Date, or (B) legislation specifically applicable to the provision of
> Registry Services adopted after the Effective Date, to ensure that
Registry
> Operator recovers such costs and a reasonable profit thereon; provided
that
> such increases exceed any reductions in costs arising from (A) or (B)
above.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:53 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; nc-transfer@dnso.org
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Re: [nc-transfer] TF Recs Ver. 1 Draft 2 Rev. 9
>
>
> Jeff -
>
> Thanks for the edits. A quick pass indicates that your modifications
> substantially tighten up the process - a good thing. One thing however, it
> would be inappropriate for registrars to pick up the cost of the
enforcement
> of the contracts contemplated under 9a,b,c. If you remember, this is why
we
> moved to a third party model appeal/fast track model in the first place -
to
> allow registrars and registrants to get contractual disputes settled
quickly
> by not only having guaranteed enforcement by the registry operator, but
also
> guaranteed mediation/arbitration from a third party in the event that the
> registry operator was not able to enforce the dispute "on its face".
>
> It was always the intent of the 9a,b,c that the registries would bear the
> cost - I am not comfortable at this stage making the specific change
> requested under 9.c.ix.
>
> Comments from anyone else?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>                      -rwr
>
>
>
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
> thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
> To: "'Ross Wm. Rader'" <ross@tucows.com>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
> Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:54 AM
> Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] TF Recs Ver. 1 Draft 2 Rev. 9
>
>
> > All,
> >
> > Here are some of my proposed changes to the Dispute Resolution section
of
> > the TF Report that I believe incorporates the ideas that Ross and I have
> > been working out.  I will put the usual caveat that this has not been
> > reviewed by the Registry Constituency yet, so I am not sure that they
will
> > agree with the changes that I have recommended.
> >
> > I am forwarding them a draft of the changes.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:02 PM
> > To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
> > Subject: [nc-transfer] TF Recs Ver. 1 Draft 2 Rev. 9
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Please find attached the latest revision of the TF recs. Note that I
have
> > cleaned up the draft and included all outstanding drafting items that
have
> > been submitted to me.
> >
> > This is *not* the final work of the drafting team.
> >
> > I still have to go through the document, clean up the drafting notes,
tie
> > together some of the references, ensure consistency etc. In other words,
a
> > quick spit-shine.
> >
> > If there are any comments or questions, please have them to me by noon
> > Sunday at which point I will consider the document close, start the
> > spit-shine and resubmit back to the TF late Sunday as the final output
of
> > the drafting team.
> >
> >
> >                        -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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>