[ga] Re: rc-irdx-090302-v1r2d7.doc
Ross, the draft language still uses the phrase "the ICANN DNSO Registrars
Constituency proposes that member Registrars voluntarily adopt the following
Doesn't all of your work to resolve the issue of transfers go into the toilet
if a certain large registrar decides not to voluntarily adopt the proposal?
As a matter of policy, I don't want to leave compliance to the arbitrary
discretion of the registrar. What is called for is a binding solution, a
"consensus policy" that is obligatory upon all registrars and which is
enforceable by ICANN. This would mean placing the policy language into the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement to which ICANN is a signatory instead of
allowing it to remain as an exhibit within the registry-registrar agreements
to which ICANN is not a signatory.
As ICANN has recently committed itself to enforcement of the RAA, (see
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03sep02.htm ) the financial
burden of enforcement would then not fall upon the shoulders of either the
registrars or registries, but rather upon ICANN itself -- which is a win-win
for both of your constituencies.
I would like to see a recommendation emerge to relocate the policy language
into the RAA where it properly belongs.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html