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

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

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. März 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. März 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

1.      Finalize recommendations with regard to PDP order, priorities, etc. 

2.      Review and edit draft documents distributed by Chuck & Olof 

3.      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."