[registrars] FYI re: Transfers

[elliot noss]

that one is easy. for the same reason they are able to renew it. it  
is in a grace period for their benefit. if it is not in  the initial  
grace period there is no argument.

On Sep 28, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Richard Lau wrote:

>
> "For instance, around expiries, we were very simply giving Louis
> instructions that Registrars can't deny a domain transfer for a  
> name that
> has expired"
>
> But isn't that the point? How can you bar a Registrar from denying a
> transfer of a domain that the Registrant no longer has rights to?
>
> If the Registrant is voluntarily agreeing (in the Domain Registration
> Agreement) that they are no longer the Registrant upon expiration,  
> then the
> Registrar simply needs only to replace the original Registrant with  
> their
> own name when the domain expires. At that point, any transfer  
> request after
> the expiration date is an unauthorized transfer.
>
> Richard Lau
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
> Sent: 28 September, 2007 10:42 PM
> To: john at johnberryhill.com
> Cc: 'elliot noss'; 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FYI re: Transfers
>
>
> John Berryhill wrote:
>
>>> when the rules were created the
>>> MEANINGS were clear.
>>
>> I promise you that in every contract dispute, both sides are  
>> extremely
> clear
>> on what the contract means.  As I mentioned, reasonable minds can  
>> differ,
>> and frequently do, in good faith.
>
> Problem is, in this instance, the policy as written, was never  
> intended
> to become the policy as applied.
>
> When the task force was documenting the policy, we were told time and
> time again not to sweat the legal stuff because it was always the plan
> to have the ICANN legal staff tighten up the wording during the
> implementation phase. Louis left right around this time and I suspect
> that this detail kind of just got dropped on the floor during the
> transition. I didn't really think twice about it, after all, I was
> generally happy with the language that was in there and not being a
> lawyer, wasn't informed enough to be concerned about the vagueness  
> that
> you correctly point out.
>
> Anyways the salient point is - the intent of the policy is extremely
> clear and is quite well captured by the document. There were some  
> areas
> that were overlooked, but these can be changed through the PDP. While
> there might be more than one way to interpret the transfer policy,  
> there
> was only one intent of the GNSO. Its not like this is the U.S.
> Constitution and we have to guess at the state of mind of the drafters
> was. I'm still around, as are the others, you can simply ask.
>
> For instance, around expiries, we were very simply giving Louis
> instructions that Registrars can't deny a domain transfer for a name
> that has expired, unless the registrant didn't pay for the just- 
> previous
> registration period for some reason (which is mostly a boundary case -
> registrations don't make it through an entire year or more without a
> bill being paid by someone at some point).
>
> This is the policy. It is very clear in my mind. What isn't clear were
> the words that were used to express the policy. Per the original
> agreement we had with staff, I think its perfectly reasonable for them
> to clean up the vagueness outside of a PDP or community consultation
> provided that the changes are consistent with the original policy
> intent. At the very least, this would be more productive than paying
> lawyers to talk circles around one another.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
>
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> t. 416.538.5492
>
>