RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Your feedback requested - Issue E

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My mistake - I meant support for 5 WORKING days

 

________________________________

From: Diaz, Paul 
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 5:42 PM
To: 'Marika Konings'; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Your feedback requested - Issue E

 

Also support the proposed modification with the 5 calendar day
timeframe.

 

Regards, P

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 4:16 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Your feedback requested - Issue E

 

Issue E: Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A
domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar
provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered
Name Holder to remove the lock status.

Proposed modification of denial reason #7: 
Prior to receipt of the transfer request, the domain name was locked
pursuant to the Registrar's published security policy or at the
direction of the Registered Name Holder provided that the Registrar
includes in its registration agreement the terms and conditions upon
which it locks domains and further that the Registrar provides a readily
accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove
the lock status. If the Registrar does not provide a means to allow a
Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status themselves, then
Registrar must facilitate removing the lock within 5 calendar days / 5
working days / 10 business days of receiving a request from the
Registered Name Holder.

Questions for the members of the WG:

1/ Do you support the proposed modification to change denial reason #7?

*       If yes, please indicate which timeframe you would support: 5
calendar days, 5 working days or 10 business days 
*       If no, please provide your feedback as to why you do not support
the proposed modification and, if possible, provide an alternative
recommendation for consideration