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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Like I said in the response I just sent a few minutes ago, I think it is 
correctly placed in Group 2 because the problem incurred has to do with dispute 
resolution.  Also, as we discussed yesterday, we don't want to end up with too 
many PDPs.  But I am not closed to changes if others in the group think they 
make sense.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:28 AM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: AW: AW: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> 
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>