RE: [nc-transfer] Call to Action...

["Safran, David" <DSafran@nixonpeabody.com>]

In addition to Ross's comments, I think it is worth noting that as a
"Transfers" task force, we need to deal with that issue and it seems to be
the one relative to which we have made the least progress (in my opinion
having been unnecessarily side-track by the apparent authority issue).  In
the IPC meeting today, the problem of registrars renewing expired domains on
their own behalf and then transferring them to a third party instead of
returning the expired domain to the registry was raised as a significant
problem.  I think that my proposal would address that problem by requiring
an expired domain name to be returned to the Registry at the end of the
redemption grace period; however, I pose the question as to whether such
behavior should also be addressed in the transfer policy itself as being an
improper renewal-transfer?
  
David S. Safran
Nixon Peabody LLP 
8180 Greensboro Drive
Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
Office:  703.770.9315
Fax:  703.770.9400
dsafran@nixonpeabody.com

This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the
message from your email system. Thank you.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 1:51 PM
To: 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
Subject: [nc-transfer] Call to Action...


I've noticed that participation has been waning lately. Despite sporadic
posts to the mailing lists, call attendance has dropped significantly
and there are task force members that I have not heard from in months.

This is unacceptable to the members of the constituency I represent.
Part of the deal is that we commit to solving the issues before us in a
cooperative manner - even if that means hunkering down for the long
haul.

To date, I have received no comment on the registrar constituency
transfer proposal - despite repeated solicitations and the fact that it
has been on the table for many, many weeks. I have also seen no comment
on David's proposal regarding deletes that was tabled earlier this week.
Should the chair assume that these documents have the consensus support
of the TF and forward them to the NC as the formal policy
recommendations of the TF?

There are also some other questions that we need to take a look at,
*now*...

1) Is there a need for a standardized registered name deletion policy?
If so, what do we need to do to arrive at that policy? What steps would
need to be taken to have it adopted by all accredited registrars? What
role do the registries play in this? What might a policy of this nature
look like?

2) Should the TF be recommending a consensus policy track on the WLS? Is
a larger policy/process needed to deal with future registry services of
this nature? What might a process like this look like?

We have a face to face meeting next week - hopefully we can get some
serious work done towards answering these questions and deal with the
outstanding policy proposals.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow