RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

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

I am sorry, Jeff, I must have missed something.  Explain to me why the
Registry should pay for a dispute process that involves Registrars and
Registrants.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:36 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Nancy J. Victory; Don Evans; Clyde Ensslin; Kathy
Smith
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; ga@dnso.org; icann board address
Subject: Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees


Chuck and all Former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  Your exactly right here Chuck!  And that someone that must pay
for handling these disputes, should be the party at fault.  Or
"Looser Pays".  In some cases that will be the Registry or
Registrar.  In others it will be the Registrant.  However what
Mr. Nueman seems to be suggesting is that the Registrant
ALWAYS should pay, regardless of whom is in the Wrong
and let the Registry access what they should pay to boot!
THAT is hardly equitable, fair, and I would argue it is
illegal as well..  Such a suggestion is at the very least,
unethical...

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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

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