<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Griffin,<br>
Quick question - if there is a bounceback indicating non-receipt
where in fact it is really delayed receipt, how could and would
that be processed by the sender?<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4D8B2E10F0AD47418B4E95663595C440182728E8@EXBE-10.hs.local"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Times New Roman;color:
#000000;font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman';
font-size: 12pt;">
<div>
<div>
<div>Volker and all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just a few thoughts on this subject--</div>
<div><br>
</div>
The re-verification process is supposed to take place
within 15 days under the 2013 RAA (3.7.7.2), but assuming
for whatever reason the P/P provider is not also the
registrar for the domain name, it may take longer than
that to notify the registrar and then re-verify the
customer/registrant contact info (I suppose it might also
take less time, depending on the process and the
responsiveness of the customer). But potentially, it
could take a fairly long time to re-verif<font>y. </font> <font>During
this time,</font> the original complainant who has
submitted a communication to be relayed to the P/P
customer would simply not <font>know </font>whether its
communication was (a) received by the P/P provider itself
(although that part would probably be presumed) or (b)
forwarded successfully (i.e. without an "undeliverable"
notice) to the P/P customer. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Informing the complainant of a bounce-back would be a
simple mechanism for preventing redundant follow-up
submissions by the same complainant trying to reach the
same customer. In other words, if the P/P provider
informed the complainant of abounce-back (perhaps in
conjunction with initiating its own next step in the
required re-verification process), this would preventthe
complainant from sending, and the P/P provider from
receiving, unnecessary/futile follow-ups in the
intervening re-verification period. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then, once re-verified, the P/P provider could just
relay the single original communication.
Overall, it would seem to me thatone simple notice back
to the complainant (and again, only in the event where the
relay is unsuccessful and the P/P provider receives a
bounce-back email associated with that attempt), would
save time and headache for both complainants and
P/Pproviders. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the non-proxy context, a complainant would directly
receive the bounce-back notification; I see no reason why
a complainant should not be equally informed when there is
a proxy intermediary.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just my two cents on this issue, and look forward to
further discussion on the subject. Enjoy the weekend!</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">-Griffin</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">Griffin M.
Barnett
<div>Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP</div>
<div>1101 30th Street NW</div>
<div>Suite 120</div>
<div>Washington, DC 20007</div>
<div>(202) 944-3307</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="gbarnett@sgbdc.com">gbarnett@sgbdc.com</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>