Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & transfers

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> the information I have seems to show that these specifics are in the
> contract between registrars and registry at least for the particular
> case of .com/.net/.org so ICANN does not have 3rd party standing to
> intervene for that case. The newer gTLD contracts are a bit more
> refined.

But isn't it the case that II.20 of the .com Registry Agreement binds
Verisign to provide access to the SRS in accordance with the terms of the
Registry/Registrar Agreement? Being a layperson, this is just a guess, but
my read indicates that ICANN does indeed have privity based solely on this
clause
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm
#II-19) If this is the case, then ICANN most certainly does have the
standing to influence the resolution (through legal or other means...)

The true shame to this entire issue is that this same clause spells out very
clearly that the Registry Operator can amend the Registry/Registrar
Agreement (and do wonderful things like close loopholes that allow
Registrars to engage in transfer hijinks) as long as ICANN signs off on
them. While Registries have exhibited varying degrees of interest in this
issue at different times - none of them have jumped in front of this issue
and pushed for resolution. One can continue to hope I suppose ;)

> It looks so me as if we need something more refined than dis-
> accreditation as the principal tool providing incentive to adhere
> to contract terms.

We've written a discussion paper that describes a possible solution to the
"blunt instrument" problem you describe (along the lines of PDG's
suggestion). You can find a copy of it here -
http://www.byte.org/heathrow/icann-reform-cda-v0r0d1-062602.html - The basic
premise of the document is that "...contracted parties and contractual
issues are not adequately separated from policy formulation and provided
separate institutional solutions. The focus of ICANN will remain on policy
development. The blind spot, as we see it, concerns the absence of provision
for contracted parties to sort out their disputes effectively within the
ICANN framework. These disputes are at the core of the registration
business. They are of intense interest to few parties, such as registrars
and registries, and of considerable interest to domain-name registrants."

A further update to this document should also be published tomorrow - I will
be sure to pass it on.

-rwr

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html