RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

You are absolutely correct.  I was referring to charges from the Registry.
The Third party would charge more, but there would be no charges from the
Registry.

Thanks for the clarification.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:06 AM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; dannyyounger@cs.com
Cc: ga@dnso.org; icann board address
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees


Jeff,

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

Chuck

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



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

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

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

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

I hope that helps.





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
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
the
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars continuing
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
a
> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine the level of
> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the transfers
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

Regards,

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

--
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
--
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