RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Drafting group - PDP on transfer denial reasons

["Michael Collins" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Olof and all,

It is clear to me that the scope is narrow in that we are only clarifying
four specific "transfer denial reasons". It is not clear to me from the
Council motion whether we are to consider anything other than interpreting
the intent of the 2003 Task Force.

Some registrars have adopted unconventional interpretations of the transfer
denial reasons which they claim protect registrants. Should we consider
whether registrants are protected by the unconventional interpretation or
are we limited to only consider whether the Task Force intended the
unconventional interpretation?

Best regards,
Michael Collins
Internet Commerce Association
+1. 202 657 4570
+1. 407 242 9009 mobile


-----Original Message-----
From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:14 AM
To: Michael Collins; gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Drafting group - PDP on transfer denial
reasons 

Michael and all,
The scope is narrow, see the adopted Council motion from last week below.
Best regards

Olof

Motion 1
=========

The GNSO Council approved the creation of a drafting team charged with
producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise
wording for the 4  provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar
transfers.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf
Drafting is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating
Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Collins [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: den 22 april 2008 16:02
To: Olof Nordling; gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Drafting group - PDP on transfer denial
reasons

Hi All,

I would like to know the scope of our work before commenting.

Are we only going to better define these four transfer denial reasons based
upon our interpretation of the intent of the original Task Force or should
we address issues apparently not considered by the Task Force such as
registrar practices that did not exist in 2003 or fraud techniques developed
in response to the current Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy?

Best regards,
Michael Collins
Internet Commerce Association
+1. 202 657 4570
+1. 407 242 9009 mobile


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:45 AM
To: gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] Drafting group - PDP on transfer denial reasons

Dear all,
Thanks for joining this group! Others may still join, so let's have a "soft
launch" by noting that there is useful background reading in the Final
Report, posted at:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf
In particular, if you want a quick intro, chapter 7 "Conclusions" gives an
overview and chapter 5 "Constituency views per issue" provides more details.

Also, I've compiled a table, attached, with the current texts of the
provisions, the "Points of Clarification document" (annexed to the Final
Report) suggestions and also proposed new texts, as supplied by two
constituencies. Please check it out and we can have an email dialogue on
this list as to whether that's useful as a starting point.

Very best regards

Olof

---------------------
Olof Nordling
Manager, Policy Development Coordination ICANN