<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed Draft Language: Reason for Denial #6
- To: "Diaz,Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed Draft Language: Reason for Denial #6
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:22:58 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Not that I'm opposed to this edit, but wasn't one of our
objectives to delete RfD #7, and fold it in to this?<br><br>Apologies if I
misunderstood that when drafting this
text...</div><div><br></div><div>J.</div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black;
font-family: verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed Draft Language: Reason for<br>
Denial #6<br>
From: "Diaz, Paul" <<a
href="mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Fri, January 07, 2011 3:21 pm<br>
To: "Steele, Barbara" <<a
href="mailto:BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, "James
M. Bladel"<br>
<<a href="mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
"ITRP-B Mailing List Mailing List"<br>
<<a
href="mailto:Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
Network Solutions supports Barbara's revision of James' proposal.<br>
<br>
Best, P<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
[<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara<br>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 3:52 PM<br>
To: James M. Bladel; ITRP-B Mailing List Mailing List<br>
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed Draft Language: Reason for<br>
Denial #6<br>
<br>
Hi James,<br>
Thanks for drafting the language. Overall I like it but would recommend<br>
<br>
modifying the last sent to stop after "opt-in basis". I believe that if<br>
the <br>
name has either clientTransferProhibited or serverTransferProhibited<br>
status <br>
assigned, the transfer request command would error out and there would<br>
be <br>
nothing to which the Transfer Contact would need to object. The<br>
additional <br>
language seems more appropriate to denial reason 7 relating to the lock <br>
scenario. Just my two cents.<br>
<br>
6. Express objection to the transfer by the Transfer Contact.<br>
Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or<br>
electronic means) by the Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer<br>
request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the<br>
Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the<br>
objection must be provided with the express and informed consent of the<br>
Transfer Contact on an opt-in basis."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Barbara<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx</a>
<br>
[<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of James M. Bladel<br>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:51 AM<br>
To: ITRP-B Mailing List Mailing List<br>
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Proposed Draft Language: Reason for Denial<br>
#6<br>
<br>
<br>
Team:<br>
<br>
<br>
As discussed on previous calls, I was tasked to present draft language<br>
for a new (clearer) version of "Reason for Denial #6." Currently, RfD<br>
#6 reads:<br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
6. Express written objection to the transfer from the Transfer Contact.<br>
(e.g. - email, fax, paper document or other processes by which the<br>
Transfer Contact has expressly and voluntarily objected through opt-in<br>
means).<br>
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Reading through the earlier WG thread (from August) and Staff notes on<br>
this subject, the general idea is that this should be clarified as to<br>
whether the objection was for a specific transfer request, or all<br>
transfer requests, and that the Registrant should be aware this is<br>
occurring (i.e. no "secret" locks).<br>
<br>
With these thoughts in mind, I have taken Staff's initial language and<br>
modified it slightly, and submit this Proposed RfD #6 text for your<br>
comment:<br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
6. Express objection to the transfer by the Transfer Contact.<br>
Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or<br>
electronic means) by the Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer<br>
request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the<br>
Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the<br>
objection must be provided with the express and informed consent of the<br>
Transfer Contact on an opt-in basis, and the Registrar must provide a<br>
reasonably accessible method to remove the lock on a timely basis,<br>
subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations of the Registrar's<br>
Registration Agreement with the Transfer Contact."<br>
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks--<br>
<br>
J.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|