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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think that the team needs to take the constituency and public  
comments into account in terms of doing the final tuning of the  
recommendations.  I think that is the primary goal:  to look at what  
was proposed, give each of the constituency/community recommendations  
and comments serious consideration and then produce a set of  
recommendations for the GNSO council to review, discuss and vote on,  
allowing for another review process especially if changes are made.
I think it is most important for each of the issues to be understood  
and whether  any changes are made or not to the original  
recommendations, discussed with the discussion documented.
a.

On 22 Apr 2008, at 11:16, Michael Collins wrote:
> 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