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

[Rob Hall <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

The Registrant makes the request for transfer at a different registrar than the 
one that has the domain now.

I can't imagine why any third party registrar would not take the request for a 
transfer.  They are gaining a client.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:04 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Items left for future discussion last week


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?