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

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

I guess Tim finally has it right. How about combining 7 and 2 with 9 and
call it PDP Issues to mitigate the likelihood of domain name hijacking.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. März 2008 18:40
An: Olof Nordling
Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes,Chuck; Mike O'Connor; Thomas Keller
Betreff: 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
> > >
> > > -----Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Mdrz 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
>
>