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

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

Yep, I think we're all on the same page.  I just think we'd be well advised to 
pick a time-interval, for sake of clarity.  But I don't feel super-strongly 
about that if others disagree.

This terse message is coming from my Blackberry, please excuse the typos

-----Original Message-----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:21:38 
To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:<gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>,       "Thomas 
Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>,       "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document


The reason I suggested moving away from 'near simultaneous' is because the 
problem can occur if the two changes occur within several days or more of one 
another, which in my opinion would not be near simultaneous.

Chuck  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:10 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Mike O'Connor; Thomas Keller; 
> Olof Nordling
> Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> 
> 
> That works too. 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, March 06, 2008 12:00 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Olof Nordling"
> <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" 
> <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> How about 'change of registrant near change of registrar'? It 
> looks like we may have to grapple further with where to put this one.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:40 PM
> > To: Olof Nordling
> > Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; Mike O'Connor; Thomas 
> > Keller
> > Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> > 
> > 
> > Please note that this is not just about a change of 
> registrant after a 
> > registrar transfer. That is one minor aspect of it. The 
> major problem 
> > is a registrant change just
> > *before* a registrar transfer. I would prefer the wording
> > *near-simultaneous* if we're going to make any changes.
> > 
> > Also, while such a near-simultaneous change of registrant and 
> > registrar can be a factor in a dispute, it goes beyond 
> disputes. Most 
> > of the contention that arise as a result of this issue 
> occurs outside 
> > of the dispute process. So I think Tom makes a good point about 
> > separating it out, but it may also go well (even better) 
> with 7 and 2.
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> > From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, March 06, 2008 10:38 am
> > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor 
> > <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz 
> > <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Chuck and all,
> > I'm still around in Brussels - and busy learning from Tim and Tom 
> > about this issue...
> > I think that 9 still fits within group 2 of our proposal, 
> preferably 
> > with some rewording of the first sentence, perhaps just "Whether 
> > special provisions are needed when transfers are requested 
> immediately 
> > following a change of registrant."
> > Is that better?
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Olof
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: den 6 mars 2008 17:10
> > To: Mike O'Connor; Thomas Keller; Tim Ruiz
> > Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>