[registrars] Transfer Policy Clarifications

[Ross Rader]

Thanks for the feedback Tim.

I will note that any party to a contract is free to interpret that  
contract, and seek relief, enforcement or award of that contract based  
on that interpretation. To the extent that the other party to that  
contract disagrees with that interpretation, they are free to seek a  
more formal legal interpretation, through the courts if necessary, to  
find out what the contract really allows for.

 From this perspective, I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for  
ICANN's compliance staff to inform the community how they are  
interpreting the agreements, and also to seek feedback from the  
community regarding how they should interpret these agreements.

It is also reasonable to seek to change the underlying policies  
through the consensus policy development process, but it is really a  
separate process from enforcing the contracts.

I have been sidetracked with this effort by the holidays, but will be  
completing the statement during the next day or so. I really  
appreciate your feedback and will incorporate it into the constituency  
document.

Best of the season,

-ross

On 20-Dec-07, at 10:14 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> First, I think calling these suggested changes in policy
> *clarifications* is a misnomer.
>
> For those involved in the Transfers Task Force that led to the current
> policy, and those of us around at the time, it may be easy to talk  
> about
> original intent. But for the hundreds of registrars that have come on
> board since then, and those who have undergone significant changes, it
> is neither easy nor fair to expect them to figure that out. They  
> became
> accredited and signed their agreements based on what that agreement  
> and
> the existing consensus policies required. To expect them to go back
> through the archives, task forces and working group reports,
> implementation reports, etc. to be sure they are implementing *what I
> meant* not *what I said* is unreasonable.
>
> Regardless, the policy is what the policy is - not perfect. But as  
> we go
> down the road of deciding what if anything needs to change, I think we
> should be clear that we're *changing* policy and give due  
> consideration
> to the registrars who have relied on what it says, not what it meant  
> to
> say. I don't want to see the Council brush it off as simply a
> *clarification* to make it easy and fast.
>
> Specific comments on the suggested changes:
>
> 1. Denial for nonpayment (reason 5)
>
> The concern I have with the proposed changes is that they seem to  
> imply
> that the Auto-Renew Grace Period is mandatory. It isn't, it is a  
> period
> offered by the registry to the registrar. How the registrar chooses to
> implement it, or not, varies from registrar to registrar. That's as it
> should be in a competitive market. So we need to be careful not to
> create a situation where many registrars feel there is no value in a
> grace period of any length, and names end up in the RGP immediately on
> expiry.
>
> 2. Lock/unlock procedures (reason 7)
>
> There needs to be an exception made here for situations similar to
> what's described in reason 6: Express written objection to the  
> transfer
> from the Transfer Contact. (e.g. - email, fax, paper document or other
> processes by which the Transfer Contact has expressly and voluntarily
> objected through opt-in means).
>
> Some registrars, including Go Daddy, have products/services that a
> customer may opt-in to at the time of registration. The whole point of
> it is addtional security and safety. So turning it off may be more
> complicated than performing other functions, but the customer has  
> chosen
> the more complicated option.
>
> There needs to be an allowance for the registrant to choose something
> else, and for the registrar to be able to provide it.
>
> 3. 60 days of initial registration (reason 8)
>
> No comment.
>
> 4. 60 days of previous transfer (reason 9)
>
> No comment.
>
>
> Tim Ruiz
> Vice President
> Corp. Development & Policy
> The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [registrars] Transfer Policy Clarifications
> From: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
> Date: Thu, December 13, 2007 2:03 pm
> To: Registrars Constituency <registrars at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Registrars,
>
> The GNSO Council is about to embark on a policy development process to
> clarify some issues related to the existing transfer policy. These
> issues are enumerated in this document:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial- 
> Clarifications-23aug07.pdf
>
> The Council has chosen not to form a task force to undertake this
> work. As a result, they have requested that each constituency submit
> their views on the issues per the following clause of the bylaws:
>
> "a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council
> will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each
> constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's
> views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit
> a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35)
> calendar days after initiation of the PDP."
>
> I have volunteered to facilitate this process. If you have views on
> the issues described in this document, please send me an email
> outlining those views no later than 5pm EST. Thursday September 20th.
> I will then incorporate the statements into a single document and
> forward them to Council for their consideration.
>
> If you have any questions, please let me know.
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> t. 416.538.5492
> c. 416.828.8783
> http://www.domaindirect.com
>
> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
> - Erik Nupponen
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen