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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>