RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] EAC Abuse

["Rob Golding" <rob.golding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James wrote ...

> or to claim EAC messages did not
> receive a timely response.  This latter scenario would put the Registry in
> the position of evaluating conflicting registrar claims before executing a
> transfer undo.

Which is what I said 2 weeks ago, and the problem with the wording as a 
registrar *must* undo the transfer based on the losing registrars *claim* of 
lack of response, then someone has to verify there really was no response, and 
the wording needs to be *may* ...

> Therefore, I believe we need an "objective observer" to the EAC exchange.

Agreed, but what if the exchange isn't by email ?

I think we need a defined EAC reporting system as part of RADAR as early as 
phase-1, even if that is as simple as "to get access to a registrars EAC you 
must complete this form" which logs the start of the process, emails both 
parties with the contact information, and gives them both 24 hours to come back 
and update it with "contact made" or otherwise.

Rob