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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, those groupings look correct to me as well.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 10, 2008 12:18 pm
To: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Olof
Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>


Thanks Tom. I missed 10, the individual PDP and will make sure I don't
miss that going forward.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:32 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Olof Nordling'
> Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx; 'Mike O'Connor'
> Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> seems ok but I think 10 is missing.
> 
> tom
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: Montag, 10. März 2008 15:41
> An: Thomas Keller; Tim Ruiz; Olof Nordling
> Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Mike O'Connor
> Betreff: RE: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> 
> That seems to make a lot of sense to me. Does anyone oppose 
> this idea?
> That would leave us with the following groupings:
> 
> Group 1: 5, 6, 15 (1st part of recommendation only) & 18 - 
> Enhancements to the current operational rules of the transfer policy
> 
> Group 2: 4, 8, 16 & 19 - Enhancements to the current transfer 
> dispute policy
> 
> Group 3: 1, 3, 12 - New Issues related to the current transfer policy
> 
> Group 4: 2, 7, 9 - PDP Issues to mitigate the likelihood of 
> domain name hijacking
> 
> Delete 11, 13, 14, 15 (2nd part of recommendation), 17
> 
> If there are no objections to this suggestion, I will go 
> ahead and include it in the draft document I plan to prepare 
> and distribute later today for further discussion.
> 
> Thanks for the great online dialog on this issue.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:20 AM
> > To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Olof Nordling'
> > Cc: gnso-trans-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; 'Mike O'Connor'
> > Subject: AW: AW: [gnso-trans-wg] Revised Document
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>