AW: AW: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

Point taken. But I would still single it out into the individual PDP section
and rephrase it  (suggesting additional text for that matter) so that the
actual problem and the scope is correctly outlined.

Does this sound like a compromise?

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2008 14:27
An: Thomas Keller
Cc: 'Gomes,Chuck'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: AW: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document

There are other implications, but I think the primary issue with it is
transfers. I really don't want to ask for a PDP on whether or not Registrars
should be required to allow registration agreement reassignments, changes of
the RNH of record, etc. I think we should leave that up to a registrar's
particulare business model.

It's the near simulataneous RNH of record change and change of registrar
issue that needs resolved. In fact, it was prohibited in the old policy and
dropped from the new one for some reason, although I have never been able to
find any explanation as to why.


Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, March 06, 2008 7:04 am
To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Gomes,Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Tim,

I absolutely agree with your statement:

> It has been a constant point of contention and needs to get resolved.

but it has absolutely nothing to do with "Enhancements to the current
transfer dispute policy". If we want to tackle this issue we should point
this out to the council as an important topic that has been identified to be
dealt with. I just do not think that any Transfer PDP is the right vehicle
for such an discussion because the whole issue is larger than just
transfers.

tom

Von: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Mdrz 2008 13:46
An: Thomas Keller
Cc: 'Gomes,Chuck'; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document



I totally disagree Tom. And you have it backwards. The concern is about
a registrar transfer occuring immediately following a change in the
Registered Name Holder (RNH) of record for the name. Also, 3.2.2 has
nothing to do with a change in the RNH of record. It has to do with the
RNH changing its own contact data. There is nothing in the RAA that
deals with, or that requires, registrars to facilitate a change of RNH
or allow assignment of its Registration Agreement from one RNH to
another.

I strongly disagree with any attempt to delete this one. It has been a
constant point of contention and needs to get resolved.

Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, March 06, 2008 4:15 am
To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Hello,

please excuse my tardiness but reading the latest document I have to
bring up one more recommendation we should discuss.


9. m. Whether special provisions are needed for change of registrant
simultaneous to transfer or within a period after transfer. The policy
does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures
in hijacking cases. (CT10.0)

It should have come to my mind before but technically there is no such
thing as a simultaneous change of registrant and registrar. The way the
protocol works is that the transfer has always to be executed first
before a change of registrant can be made. In fact the transfer itself
has nothing to do with  any registrant data it is purely a change in
sponsorship from one registrar to another. A change of registrant after
the completion of a transfer is in no way related to the transfer policy
but subject to the RRA requirement 3.22:

3.2.2 Within five (5) business days after receiving any updates from the
Registered Name Holder to the data elements listed in Subsections
3.2.1.2, 3.1.2.3, and 3.2.1.6 for any Registered Name Registrar
sponsors, Registrar shall submit the updated data elements to, or shall
place those elements in the Registry Database operated by the Registry
Operator.

As I agree that both issues can be related especially in the case of
hijacking changes I do not view this as a transfer issue and would
therefore suggest to swop it into the pool of deleted recommendations.

Best,

tom


Von: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Mdrz 2008 00:31
An: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document



Here is the latest version of our PDP recommendations as promised.  Note
that the changes we agreed to in today's call are highlighted; please
verify that I have captured them correctly and communicate any errors on
this list ASAP so that I can prepare a clean document by Monday of next
week.  Also note that there are two sections as follows that I added at
the end of the document: 1) my summary of the discussion we had
regarding ordering of the PDPs; 2) meeting details for next week that I
repeat here: Wednesday, 12 March, 16:00 UTC (09:00 PDT Los Angeles,
11:00 CDT Cedar Rapids, 17:00 CET Brussels).  This is one hour later
than today's meeting - note that those of us in the U.S. will be on
daylight savings time and I think I properly reflected that in the times
shown.

Action Items for Next Week

All:  review the attached document and communicate any corrections or
suggested changes to this list NLT Sunday, 9 March

Chuck:  prepare a clean version of the attached document with added text
to create a draft version of our recommendations for the Council and
distribute it ASAP before next week's call

Olof:  prepare a draft version of text that will be integrated with
Chuck's draft as part of the recommendations document to the Council
(e.g., references to related documents, members of the WG, numbering
scheme for recommendations and priorities, etc.)

Agenda for Next Week

+ Finalize recommendations with regard to PDP order, priorities, etc.
+ Review and edit draft documents distributed by Chuck & Olof
+ Make plans for finalizing and sending our recommendations to the
Council.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."