Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from ICANN Compliance

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd agree with Paul

I'd also want compliance to give us assurances that any "extenuating 
circumstances" excuse could not be abused ie. while one *could* accept that 
there was something beyond anyone's control that made it impossible for a 
registrar to respond (I'm thinking earthquakes or other BIG issues) once that 
compliance wouldn't allow for "repeat offenders"

Regards

Michele


On 23 May 2011, at 14:03, Diaz, Paul wrote:

> I’m hard pressed to come up with any “extenuating circumstance” that would 
> prevent a gaining registrar from RESPONDING within four hours (again, 
> resolution is not required in this time frame).  If members of the WG feel 
> such a caveat is necessary, however, I would insist that the exception be 
> very tightly defined – otherwise the entire purpose of the Emergency Transfer 
> Contact (I agree with the Registrar Liaison’s input, and like Marika’s 
> formulation) would be undermined.
>  
> Regards, P
>  
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:06 AM
> To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Feedback from ICANN Compliance
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> In response to clarifications requested from ICANN Compliance in relation to 
> enforcement / non-compliance with consensus policies, I can share the 
> following:
>       • All ICANN Consensus Policies are incorporated into the RAA, it makes 
> no difference whether the obligation is reflected in a Consensus Policy 
> (IRTP) or be made part of the RAA. Accordingly,  ICANN Compliance will follow 
> the same processes for escalated compliance actions and pursue whatever 
> sanctions or remedies available under the RAA.
>       • At the same time, in relation to the EAC, there might be certain 
> limitations with regard to how easily compliance can pursue non-compliant 
> registrars. For example, there might be valid reasons why the gaining 
> registrar did not respond within 4 hours which means Compliance would have to 
> try and verify or validate the explanation/reasons provided by the gaining 
> registrar. As a result, compliance may not be able to make a quick and 
> straight forward determination due to the nature of the issue or causes of 
> non-compliance.
>       • A possible enhancement could be to add 'absent extenuating 
> circumstances' prior to 'Responses are required within 4 hours of the initial 
> request extenuating circumstances', although it would be helpful if the WG 
> would provide examples of what it would consider extenuating circumstances.
> You'll find attached the slide presentation that was mentioned during last 
> week's meeting which outlines the different escalation paths available to the 
> Compliance Staff under the RAA.
>  
> With best regards,
>  
> Marika

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://invadeeurope.eu/
http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/
http://rss.me/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845