Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
- To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group
- From: Doug Brent <doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:32:18 -0700
I don't have an immediate response to this note, nor will this week,
but will be happy to investigate and respond in November.
Chief Operating Officer
On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
> 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 WHOIS update.
> 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 language?
> (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 major player?
> 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,
> Danny Younger