RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] RE: [council] Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons

["Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That is my understanding as well, Tim. 


-------------------------------------------------------
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: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:44 AM
To: Olof Nordling
Cc: gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx; Council GNSO
Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] RE: [council] Summary of Public Comments -
IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons


I'd like to explain what I believe to be the group's reasoning for not
accepting the IPC's proposal. I want to assure Steve and the IPC that we
did not gloss over their proposal. It was carefully considered.

While the group's work was part of a PDP, the Council created it as 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." 

As a result, we understood our task to be "clarification" of the
existing reasons based on the previous and extensive work already done
under this PDP to determine the original intent of each reason, and not
one of recommending changes to the policy. The IPC proposed wording,
while well reasoned, we believed constituted a change and/or addition to
the original intent of those reasons, and therefore a change in the
policy. 

We used the same approach when addressing the other two reasons. While
the previous work done under the PDP seemed clear that the majority of
stakeholders were in agreement as to the original intent of reasons #8
and #9, that was not so clear regarding reasons #5 and #7. As a result,
we felt they would be best considered during one of the upcoming
Transfer PDPs.

Disclaimer: This is my recollection. Others on the drafting team may
recall things differently.

 
Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on
Clarification of DenialReasons
From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 23, 2008 9:36 am
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-trans-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>


Dear Council Members,                (cc: drafting group list)
Attached please find a summary of the public comments outcome of the
recent posting for this PDP, for your information and consideration of
further steps to take.
Very best regards
Olof