Re: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick and all,

  Problem with this "Advisory" is that it is just that,
and "Advisory" not a mandate.  Ergo it has no teeth
as it should have been a directive with consequences
if the terms are violated.  Milk toast, IMO.

  If this is any example of oversite by ICANN/GNSO staff,
it is hardly effective oversite.  Seems to me these
"Advisories" have little use other the an attempt
to give a "Warm and fuzzy" to registrants.  So what
these "Advisories" are, are an example of the emperor
has no clothes...  In more common parlance, lip service!

-----Original Message-----
>From: At-Large Staff <staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Apr 3, 2008 9:15 PM
>To: At-Large Worldwide <alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar        
>Transfer Policy
>
>ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
>
>Advisory available at
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm
>
>Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the
>circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests
>pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007,
>ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the
>Inter-Registrar Transfer
>(Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm.
>
>As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding
>the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of
>the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was
>necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars
>in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer
>Policy.
>
>The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days
>regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14
>were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment
>opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed
>neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering
>the comments received and other information provided by registrars
>regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient
>confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist
>registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy:
>
>1. Registrars are prohibited from denying
>a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending
>or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and
>
>2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for
>denying a transfer request.
>
>The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19
>September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration"
>was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the
>Proposed Advisory.
>
>Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy
>was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting
>Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with
>several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The
>Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process
>for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar
>to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored
>gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy
>pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is
>to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests.
>
>
>-- 
Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827