<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div apple-content-edited="true">hi all,<br><br>Marika and i came up with some ideas on moving this conversation forward. these ideas were battle tested and refined on the drafting subgroup call that happened this morning. see what you think.<br><br>first, thanks all for the lively conversation this week. it helped me understand a few things better and shaped this scheme. <br><br>here's the short version of the idea. let's:<br><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div apple-content-edited="true">1) develop a series of scenarios and use them to explore the boundaries of policy and roles. </div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">2) acknowledge that there's a gap right now -- the implementation of registrant-transfer in IRTP-C. once this is further along we may find that there are other options that registrants can use pursue certain complaints, that the policy is insufficient, that additional mechanisms need to be developed, etc. in a sense, we're ahead of that process -- but we're also coming across issues that need to be fed into it. since we're ahead, we might as well document those things as we come across them.</div><div apple-content-edited="true"><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">3) also acknowledge that the TDRP is currently not very visible to registrants, nor do they understand either the policy or the role of registrars in implementing it. perhaps we can beef up the notification that registrars provide about the policy, and registrants options as to how they can proceed, especially at the time when a registrant comes to the registrar with a problem.</div></blockquote><div apple-content-edited="true"><br>here's some more detailed material about the "scenarios" idea.<br><br>when building our scenarios, let's use these dimensions for starters. you're encouraged to invent more dimensions, by the way.<br><br>- policy<br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- existing IRTP/TDRP clearly applies<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- "inter registrant transfer" version of IRTP clearly applies<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- ICANN policy clearly does NOT apply<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- murky puzzler <br><br>- parties<br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- disputes entirely between registrants<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- disputes entirely between registrars<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- disputes between registrants where registrars may be a party to the dispute<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- disputes between registrars where registrants may be a party to the dispute<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- murky puzzler<br><br>- role of ICANN Compliance<br><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Compliance clearly has a role under existing IRTP/TDRP policy<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Compliance could have a role under the "inter registrant transfer" version of IRTP<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Compliance clearly does NOT have a role under any circumstance<br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- murky puzzler<br><br>let's run a few scenarios through that sifter and see whether this is getting us anywhere. i'm hopeful. <br><br>thanks all,<br><br>mikey<br><br><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)</div><br></body></html>