[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names

Metalitz, Steven met at msk.com
Tue Apr 15 15:43:35 UTC 2014

I agree the discussion and presentation today were highly relevant to relay.

On B 3 itself, should we be specifying that one responsibility of accredited providers is to fully disclose to customers how use of their service may impact the customer’s ability to transfer to another registrar?   (Or, put another way, how efforts to transfer will affect provision of the service.)

If the relay obligation is sufficiently robust, then this disclosure requirement might be less important, but it would be worthwhile to mark this point here, pending the relay discussion.

Steve Metalitz

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:35 AM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names

Dear Don / Steve / James and Mary,
Thanks so much for the presentation on today's call. I learnt a lot about how the privacy & proxy services interact with the transfer policies, which was hugely helpful.
Can we make sure we tie this information / discussion into the relevant work items? My suggestion is that we would come back to what we learnt today when we come to talk about 'relay', and also towards the end of our work in the wrap-up side of things to do a sanity check on how any possible recommendations might impact on the transfer policy.
Does that make sense? Or perhaps it fits into other areas I haven't considered.
Many thanks to James for the presentation.

All the best, Maria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140415/654d1204/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list