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

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

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