Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Judging from the fees sought by the VeriSign registry for WLS, et al,
a third party could, as well, be significantly less expensive. Let's
deal with the facts as they become clearly known.


Thursday, February 20, 2003, 8:06:00 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
GC> Jeff,

GC> If a transfer dispute was handled by a neutral 3rd party, I would expect the
GC> charges to be considerably higher than if done by a registry.  Third parties
GC> aren't going to do it for free and someone has to pay for it.

GC> Chuck

GC> -----Original Message-----
GC> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
GC> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:19 AM
GC> To: dannyyounger@cs.com
GC> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; ga@dnso.org; icann board address
GC> Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees



GC> Danny, to be honest the issues as to what fees (if any) to be charged by a
GC> Registry for implementing a dispute process regarding transfer complaints
GC> was not addressed by the Transfer Task Force or Implementation Committee
GC> except that it is understood that a Registry should be able to recover its
GC> costs for administering the disputes. 

GC> I do not mean to "punt" this issue, but for now, since the actual scope of
GC> the dispute process has not been set out and the rules and procedures have
GC> not been drafted, it is impossible for us as registries to tell you what
GC> such a charge (if any) would be.  To give you an example, if a Registry is
GC> only required to merely look at the transaction records and then make a
GC> determination as to whether it appeared on its face that a transfer was
GC> authorized, this would obviously cost a lot less to administer than if we
GC> were required to take in written pleadings (or something similar) with each
GC> party making arguments and make some sort of determination as to which
GC> position is correct.

GC> If these disputes were presided over by neutral third parties (rather than
GC> the registries), then obviously there would be no charge.

GC> My recommendation on going forward would be for a group of interested
GC> parties to take a stab at a first comprehensive draft asto exactly how this
GC> dispute process would work, what remedies could be sought, who pays the
GC> costs, whether penalties could be assessed, etc.  Once that is complete, I
GC> believe the Registries (if we are the dispute providers) can make an
GC> assessment to any associated costs.

GC> I hope that helps.





GC> DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>> Jeff,
>>
>> Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in the Transfers
>> Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation indicates, a
>> dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the
>> presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for such
GC> services.
>> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a registry has set an
>> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the registrant to
GC> the
>> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars continuing
GC> to
>> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers dispute resolution
>> process.
>>
>> As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address this issue,
>> could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee to be set by
GC> a
>> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the level of
>> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers
GC> dispute
>> process.
>> --
>> 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

GC> Regards,

GC> --
GC> Jeffrey A. Williams
GC> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
GC> ================================================================
GC> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
GC> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
GC> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
GC> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

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




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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