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

Winterfeldt, Brian J. brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com
Tue Apr 15 15:51:28 UTC 2014


Brian J. Winterfeldt
Head of Internet Practice
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118
p / (202) 625-3562  f / (202) 339-8244  m/ (202) 903-4422
brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/>

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Following up today's discussion on transferring names

Makes sense to me.

On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:45 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
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> [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<mailto: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
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>

CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used
by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or 
distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify
the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original 
message without making any copies.
NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has
elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140415/73991b96/attachment.html>

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