Re: [gnso-raa-dt] Expected staff inputs to RAA Working Group

[Doug Brent <doug.brent@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
I don't have an immediate response to this note, nor will this week,  
but will be happy to investigate and respond in November.

Best,
Doug
--
Doug Brent
Chief Operating Officer
ICANN

V: +1.310.301.3871
M: +1.650.996.4447

On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

> Doug,
>
> 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 
> http://www.nullamatix.com/godaddy-nightmare-express-written-objection-to-transfe/
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>