<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review - Updated straw man proposal & public comment review tool
- To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review - Updated straw man proposal & public comment review tool
- From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <kdorrain@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:54:10 +0000
Yes...It may be within scope to recommend best practices for this as it is
fully related to the unlock. These best practices could/should be directed to
both registrars AND complainants.
Kristine
From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:15 AM
To: Dorrain, Kristine
Cc: 'Marika Konings'; Gnso-lockpdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-lockpdp-wg] RE: For your review - Updated straw man proposal
& public comment review tool
Point 2 is for when the Complainant prevails. The Registrar implements the
transfer when the time period has run out.
Or at least tries to do so. If the complainant does not provide the necessary
data to the registrar, the domain ownership or registration can not be
transferred however much we wish to do so, i.e. the registrar may be unable to
implement the decision.
Some complainants just tell us to transfer the domain name to registrar X and
then never respond to our queries.
In other words, to demand that the registrar "implement the decision" may be
demanding an impossible task in certain - albeit rare - cases.
Best,
Volker
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|