DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution

I'd like to have a call with Ross and Grant on drafting this week yet. I am now 4 hours ahead of US EST... so we have to figure around that.

I need final draft from this little team. I know that Ross was intending to get that undertaken early this week...
Can I get an update from you on that, Ross.Also, please also post to marilynscade@hotmail.com in addition to the list... I am sometimes not able to access my attmail. Regards, Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:50 PM
To: 'Ross Wm. Rader'; Grant Forsyth; 'Neuman, Jeff';
Subject: RE: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution

Ross and Jeff I concur with both your approaches.. but
As I read the submission on the question as to which contract the transfer
policy should be implemented through, I take it that the reason that there
is support for the Accreditation Contract, is because this is the only
contract with the Registrars that ICANN is a party to and hence would be in
a position to exercise any enforcement.

Please confirm:
1) That the only contract between Registrars and ICANN is through the
Accreditation contract
2) If (1) is true, what is your view as to the importance of having
transfers as part of a contract with Registrars in which ICANN is a party?

PS I wasn't on the call this morning (my time), are we having calls in
Marilyn's absence? 
Is there a call next week?
Have we settled and agreed the draft of the IRDX to have it go out?
Who will post it to the NC?

Grant Forsyth
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Thursday, 10 October, 2002 03:50
To: Grant Forsyth; 'Neuman, Jeff'; nc-transfer@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution

My preference would be directive as to the intent and requirements that we
desire, but to remain silent as to implementation. If we can effectively
describe what we aim to achieve, the staff will be able to make an
appropriate determination of where this should live without being shackled
by a resolution that may or may not adequately deal with all of the
contractual issues.

What I mean is, we ultimately want a stable policy that is implemented once
across all relevant TLDs. It may be that there is more than one way for the
staff to contractually skin this - we should provide them with as much
flexibility in this regard as we possibly can.

In reviewing the IRDX document with Dan, he seemed to indicate that this
would be the most appropriate way to proceed. While he wasn't providing me
with official guidance, his comments were clear.

In all cases when we provide instructions to others we should strive to make
our requirements as clear as possible while leaving the fulfillment of those
requirements as a matter for the implementers.


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

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Forsyth" <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:54 PM
Subject: [nc-transfer] Draft resolution

> Jeff et al
> I would prefer, at this stage, to stick to the wording that I "drafted" on
> the call, namely:
> 2. The ICANN Board should direct the ICANN staff to implement the policy
> through contract amendments to the [ICANN Accredited Registrar]
> [Registry-Registrar] contract(s) to give effect to the recommendations in
> the IRDX report
> I think there is a desire, as expressed through the email discussions,
> we (ultimately the NC) be explicit as to how we "direct" the staff
> which contract the transfers policy is enacted through - so as to address
> concerns over ICANN's involvement.
> Jeff's amendment is silent on which contract - but can also be read to
> the ICANN Registrar Accreditation contract, as this is the only contract
> (that I have been made aware of) in which ICANN is a party.
> Does the TF think:
> A)  we need to be explicit as to the contract in which the policy is
> enacted?
> B) that, if yes to A), then is there a preference to the contract?
> C) that Jeff's wording can only be read as the ICANN Registrar
> contract - as this is the only contract in which ICANN is a party to?
> Wording suggestion for additional point in the resolution which will
> hopefully provide a single recommendation to address 3,4,5 as noted in my
> draft and also is wide enough for the staff to develop the specific
> in conjunction with the Registrars.
> 3. Implementation should include the Registrars and ICANN staff together
> developing a regular audited Registrar self reporting of their performance
> in actioning transfer requests and the resultant outcomes. This reporting
> be public and monitored by ICANN for the purpose of contract enforcement
> review of the transfers policy.
> Hope that is clear, I look forward to fellow TF members comments
> Grant Forsyth
> [Grant Forsyth]  -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
> Sent: Thursday, 03 October, 2002 06:29
> To: 'nc-transfer@dnso.org'
> Subject: [nc-transfer] How about this for Resolution No. 2
> The NC Resolves that the ICANN Board should direct the ICANN staff to
> conduct negotiations toward appropriate revisions to agreements between
> ICANN and the gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars as appropriate to
> implement the recommendations in the IRDX report.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Director, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Loudoun Tech Center
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Building X
> Sterling, VA 20166
> p: (571) 434-5772
> f:  (571) 434-5735
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us>
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
> personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This
> may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is
> privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the
> recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail
> message and any attachments hereto in error and that any review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>