RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Items left for future discussion last week

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, compliance has said that it is only there problem once a 
request is made and then denied. My suggested problem is an attempt 
to remedy this ensuring that the registrant has an opportunity to 
make the request.
Alan

At 11/05/2010 12:17 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> Alan,
>
> The issue and solution to Question 15 seems to me like we are 
> reaching for a solution when there is not really a problem with the 
> language as it currently written.
> The premise that Registrar is required to transfer during the ARGP 
> logically extends to the fact that the Registrar must allow a 
> registrant to request a transfer. If they do not allow it for some 
> reason, this is an issue for ICANN compliance and the rules and 
> process we have in place.
> To put it another way, if we have the language that you have 
> suggested, would it make a difference in the process and what is 
> currently happening or would the registrant still need to go to 
> Compliance if there is a bad apple that does not allow it?
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:40 PM
> To: PEDNR
> Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Items left for future discussion last week
>
>
> There were a number of items left for e-mail discussion last week.
> Since I did not have the time to start the discussion on e-mail, I
> would like to take some time during today's meeting to discuss them.
> The following are my initial suggestions for addressing the issues.
>
> Quest 5 - details of how notice are sent
> ========================================
>
> There was general agreement that we should not transmission methods
> such as Twitter or even SMS in the RAA. Currently, there is NO
> requirement to use any method (even e-mail). Carrier pigeon would
> suffice. Do we need to be specific. If not, how do we ensure that the
> registrar picks a "satisfactory" notification method.
>
> Our challenge here is not to pick the method, but to phrase the
> question so that answers are meaningful.
>
>
> Quest 9 - Post expiration Web intercept
> =======================================
>
> The question arose about what registrars currently do when the
> intercept post-expiration web traffic. Specifically, do they
> "typically" intercept *.domain.tld, that is, all subdomains?
>
> We discussed that stopping domains from working soon after expiration
> should not be required is registrar was "in contact" with the
> registrant. We need a way to define "in contact".
>
>
> Quest 15 - Transfer during ARGP
> ===============================
>
> This is my attempt to craft a question.
>
> Currently a registrar is required to transfer a domain during the
> post-expiration period if such a transfer is requested by the
> registrant (with some very specific exceptions). However, due to
> various registrar practices, it may be impractical or impossible for
> the RAE to make such a request during the post-expiration period and
> there is no current policy that requires a registrar to allow such a
> request to be made.
>
> Option a) Require that a registrar allow the RAE to request a
> transfer during the post-expiration period.
>
> Option b) Best practice
>
> Option c) Status quo
>
>
> General
> =======
>
> What is the "reasonable" number of hours/days that provides some
> grace to the registrar but stops normal functioning within a
> reasonable amount of time?