Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
- To: "gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, Doug Brent <doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Thank you for this advisory. I look forward to a better understanding of those
contractual provisions that are deemed to be "hard to enforce".
For several years now, registrants have been complaining (both anecdotally and
in writing to the Compliance Department) that a major registrar has been
violating the terms of the Consensus Policy on Transfers (even after the Staff
publication of the 3 April '08 Registrar Advisory Concerning the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy) by refusing to allow transfers subsequent to a
So let me ask: When we have a clear consensus policy supplemented by a clear
advisory and yet we see that a problem is *still* ongoing, what exactly are we
to fault and/or how should the situation best be addressed?
(1) Is there some lack of clarity in the consensus policy and/or advisory
(2) Are there no provisions by way of which ICANN can take action?
(3) Is the Compliance Department simply unwilling to take action against a
Just today, another such complaint emerged -- please see
If we are to assist in facilitating ICANN's contractual compliance initiatives
it would be helpful to understand (using this particular example) the nature of
the roadblocks that the compliance team is running into.
Looking forward to any clarifications that may be offered,