[CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

[David Conrad]

Becky,

On Nov 4, 2014, at 6:50 AM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
> On David Conrad’s point about the need for authorization introducing latency issues, etc., - valid point.  On the other hand, if we were to recommend doing away with that step, how do we ensure that an incumbent operator has appropriate notice and an opportunity to contest revocation/redelegation/transfers?

The authorization step is _after_ the confirmation of the request by the TLD manager(s). By the time a change request is sent for authorization, all parties involved have already provided explicit consent for the change to be processed.

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141104/b6b1bb69/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141104/b6b1bb69/signature.asc>