RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Suggestions for Reasons 5 and 7

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

thanks to both of you for the thoughts and energy.

for those of you who missed the call this week, our topic for the 
next call is to determine where to recommend these two issues be 
placed in the subsequent PDPs and this thread seems to be a great 
start toward that goal.
please read this thread carefully, ponder deeply, and chime in with 
refinements (as Barabara did).
great job,

m

At 10:14 AM 5/30/2008, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Barbara,
>
> The association with PDP D 16 and 19 is due to the fact that disputes
> over payment between the registrant and the registrar are a common
> problem and the reason a lot of transfers don't succeed. Of course, a
> lot of that has to do with the way the policy is interpreted by
> registrars (and is why reason #5 is under review). These payment
> disputes that are a big reason why the issue of registrants initiating
> the Transfer Dispute Resolution Process (TDRP) has been raised.
>
> When there is a dispute over payment the current registrar is not likely
> to offer to initiate a TDRP and may not even inform the registrant that
> the TDRP exists. So the registrant must rely on the gaining or intended
> registrar who has no window into this particular kind of problem. As a
> result, the gaining registrar may hesitate to start a TDRP and often
> tells the registrant they have to resolve the problem with their current
> registrar first
>
> At any rate, I'm fine with recommending PDP C.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] Suggestions for Reasons 5 and 7
> From: "Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, May 30, 2008 7:26 am
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Tim,
> Thanks for pulling this together. I had tried to send a brief note to
> the group yesterday to make some recommendations but I am apparently
> having operator errors - I don't believe that the last two e-mails that
> I have sent have made it to the group. In any event, I agree completely
> with your suggested updates and recommendations for denial reason #7 as
> it does track very closely with Issue #5 in the PDP C - IRTP Operational
> Rule Enhancements.
>
> With regard to denial reason #5, the additional background and
> information that you have drafted under the concerns section are very
> good. I also agree with the information that you have included under
> the recommendations with the exception of which PDP to fold it into.
> Since PDP D includes issues that are all related specifically to the
> Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy, I don't believe that PDP D is a good
> fit for this denial reason. Instead, I would suggest that we recommend
> that it also be included in PDP C since how transfer requests are
> handled when there are issues relating to payment for prior registration
> periods could be deemed operational. I don't see the connection to issue
> 16 (Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and
> implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on
> registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf) or issue 19 (Whether
> requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars
> to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to
> registrants) which are included in PDP D.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Barbara Steele
> Compliance Officer
> VeriSign Information Services
> bsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Direct: 703.948.3343
> Mobile: 703.622.1071
> Fax: 703.421.4873
>
>
> 21345 Ridgetop Circle
> Dulles, VA 20166
>
>
> Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary
> and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient
> and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the
> prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you
> have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original
> message without making a copy. Thank you.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 5:48 PM
> To: gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] Suggestions for Reasons 5 and 7
>
> In text below and in the Word doc attached. It includes suggested
> revisions to the Concerns and Recommendations sections for #5, and to
> the Recommendations section for #7.
>
> Denial Reason #5
>
> Concerns
>
> In addition to the text of denial reason #5, the IRTP policy also states
> a transfer may not be denied for nonpayment for a pending or future
> registration period, and then further states that denying transfers
> should not be used as a way to resolve disputes over payment with two
> exceptions: (i) In the case of non-payment for previous registration
> period(s) if the transfer is requested after the expiration date, or
> (ii) In the case of non-payment of the current registration period, if
> transfer is requested before the expiration date.
>
> Any attempt to clarify or modify reason #5 would necessarily require a
> review of the meaning and intent of these other provisions in the policy
> as they could be seen to be contradictory in some aspects, and have been
> interpreted in various ways. This was also pointed out in the final
> report of 9 April 2008 in sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4.
>
> Other concerns are:
>
> * The proposed texts, or clarifications, raise deeper issues and
> more
> complexity than we are prepared to deal with within the scope and
> timeframe allotted to this drafting group.
> * "Registration period" is not clearly linked to the Registration
> Agreement at present -- a change in this relationship is a policy issue,
> not a clarification of existing policy.
> * There is no reference to the Auto Renew Grace Period within the
> IRTP
> policy. However, the recent ICANN Staff advisory states that there is a
> clear association between the Auto Renew Grace Period and the intent of
> denial reason #5.
> * Many of the conversations and interpretations of this part of
> the IRTP
> have taken place over a long period of time -- community input issues.
>
> Recommendation
>
> There appears to be general agreement on what this denial reason was
> trying to accomplish, but we should allow an appropriate amount of time
> for formulating revisions that will effectively resolve the ambiguity.
> More time is needed to fully understand the existing and various IRTP
> provisions on this subject, the recent ICANN Staff advisory, and the
> comments in the constituency statements in order to adequately address
> the questions raised in the final report.
>
> It is recommended that the Council either:
>
> 1. Include clarification of denial reason #5 in PDP D (IRTP Dispute
> Policy Enhancements) of the final report of 19 March 2008. At the core
> of this reason for denial is dispute over payment between the registrant
> and the registrar and could impact the resolution of issues 16 and 19 of
> PDP D; or
>
> 2. Immediately extend the charter and scope of this Drafting Team
> to
> become a Working Group and seek additional participation of interested
> stakeholders to address this issue more thoroughly, and prior to the
> initiation of PDP D.
>
> Denial Reason #7
>
> Recommendation
>
> Issue 5 under PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP Recommendations of 19 March
> 2008 and the reason for wanting to clarify reason for denial number 7
> are very closely related.
>
> Issue 5 of PDP C on IRTP Operational Rule Enhancements states: "Whether
> standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of
> Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be
> applied). (CR 8.0)"
>
> The IRTP Policy Clarification of Reasons for Denial final report of 9
> April 2008 says in the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 5:
> "Regarding "lock status", there is support for clarification, with a
> clear focus on the meaning of "readily accessible and reasonable means"
> for removing the lock."
>
> The result of the pending PDP that will include Issue 5 of PDP C could
> have an impact on "readily accessible and reasonable means" for removing
> a registrar lock. Given the close relationship of these two issues it is
> recommended that they be combined as a single issue. It could then be
> left as Issue 5 of PDP C, or it could be moved to its own PDP. If the
> latter, the Council could also decide to immediately extend the charter
> and scope of this Drafting Team to become a Working Group and seek
> additional participation of interested stakeholders. The Council may
> first need to decide if a new issues report would be necessary to
> include Issue 5 of PDP C.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1474 - Release Date: 
> 5/30/2008 7:44 AM