RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny:

 

As you probably have seen, in addition to the ICANN staff advisory that
you cite below, the GNSO also has issued a draft advisory for public
comment on transfer issues (see
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#transfer-policy).   The GNSO had
formed a working group to focus on Transfer Policy issues, and the GNSO
advisory is an outgrowth of that working group.  The GNSO will evaluate
the public input and decide whether the original or an amended draft
should be released.  Per the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO is the appropriate
forum for policy development work to consider any potential changes to
the Transfer Policy.  To the extent that you or any other members of the
community wish to clarify/change the Transfer Policy, it should come
from the GNSO and not ICANN staff.  It appears that ICANN staff's
attempt to alter an existing policy via fiat may have been set aside in
lieu of the bottom-up ICANN policy development process - a cornerstone
of ICANN's existence.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon Nevett

Network Solutions

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Danny Younger
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:53 AM
To: Kieren McCarthy
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ga] Proposed Advisory

 

 

Kieren,

 

A question has been posed on the Public Participation

website; could we trouble you to look into this...

 

"Status of the Proposed Advisory?

What is the status of this Proposed Advisory, to stop

this practice?

 

http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposed-advisory-19sep07.htm

 

Network Solutions is STILL blocking domain transfers,

if the domain owner updates their contact info, even

though the advisory clearly states "A registrant

change to Whois information is not a valid basis for

denying a transfer request." I suspect GoDaddy hasn't

stopped doing this either.

 

What is the next step, after hearing public comments

on this proposed advisory?"

http://public.icann.org/node/244#comment-661