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

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

Great online dialog guys.  Now all we need is for Olof to chime in.  I suspect 
that he may already be in California or traveling there so it is still early 
for him.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:55 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Thomas Keller; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: AW: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> 
> I'm inclined to favor Tim's perspective -- clarifying and 
> resolving this often-contentious issue strikes me as 
> something we want to keep in the PDPs.  My recollection of 
> the intent was to focus on near-simultaneous transfers, and 
> strengthen safeguards to reduce the likelihood of hijacking.
> 
> Since that's much of what is going into Group 2, I'd be 
> inclined to leave it there.  But clarifying the wording to 
> acknowledge that there is no such thing as "simultaneous" 
> also strikes me as a good idea.
> 
> At 09:41 AM 3/6/2008, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >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."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1315
> >- Release Date: 3/6/2008 9:07 AM
> 
>