ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08]


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

RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] partial bulk transfer terms

  • To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] partial bulk transfer terms
  • From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:31:37 -0800

Mike and all,
I was not involved in the Transfers WG chaired by Ross Rader that brought up 
this and other IRTP matters, so I have difficulties providing more substance 
than that WG's communication to the Council. I've attached that one, where 
partial bulk transfer appears at the very end, with no more explanatory text 
than we've used ourselves. I'll try to ping colleagues that may know more about 
it though and revert if I get any further exegesis on this particular topic.
Best regards
Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 3:42 PM
To: Diaz, Paul; Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] partial bulk transfer terms


i don't have real strong feelings one way or the other.

just to make sure we're not missing something important -- Olaf,
could you remind us of the history of this partial bulk transfer
item?  was there a rationale that we've lost track of, that we should
consider one last time before dropping this?   if there's nothing
like that, i'm OK dropping this one.



At 11:13 AM 11/25/2008, Diaz, Paul wrote:

>Today's call had a lively debate on our draft scenarios for partial bulk
>transfers (PBTs).  A key concern is whether the current bulk transfer
>provisions already cover most of these scenarios and/or if the other
>cases can be addressed by existing market solutions.
>
>The WG must remain focused on its charter Issues and guard against
>product (as opposed to policy) development.  Before next Tuesday's
>(12/2) call, please provide your perspective on the following:
>
>Does the WG need to continue debating Issue III re: PBTs?
>
>If so, what distinguishes a PBT from the existing tools?  Also, how
>should PBT terms (i.e. requirements, fees, etc.) be defined?  Please
>explain.
>
>For all: Does the Initial Report's coverage of Issue III accurately
>capture your view re: PBTs?  Please explain.
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date:
>11/25/2008 8:29 AM

Attachment: Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf
Description: Transfer-Policy-Issues-23aug07.pdf



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy