ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtp-b-jun09]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "'Diaz, Paul'" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Marika Konings'" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Your feedback requested - Issue E
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 15:32:45 -0700

Please understand that 'working days' and 'business days' are not uniform
throughout the world; so the only valid metric can be calendar days, and
five of them ought to be more than enough for any domain registrar to
accomplish this task.  I also don't like the phrase 'readily accessible and
reasonable' since reasonable is practically meaningless, particularly when
one of the largest domain registrars appears to want to allow a week to
accomplish this!  

 

Perhaps there should be some examples of what this is intended to mean?  Or
does it mean 'online via a reasonably easily locatable mechanism at the
registrar's website', which ought to be simple enough for any domain
registrar?

 

Also this phrase "facilitate removing" should be replaced with "remove"?

 

Otherwise I support the modification.

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 2:43 PM
To: Marika Konings; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Your feedback requested - Issue E

 

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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy