RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

I'm well aware of your views on this matter as I have
read the earlier comments that you submitted on behalf
of Network Solutions.  What you regard as an improper
action by Staff, I and others view as an appropriate
enforcement measure designed to curb abuse.  There is
no policy development issue here -- the policy is
clear and Network Solutions (among others) is in
flagrant violation of established policy.  My only
regret was that ICANN Staff chose to act as wimps by
putting out a "proposed" advisory instead of firmly
laying down the law as Louis Touton certainly would
have done.  

We'll have to wait and see if Staff will prove
themselves to be gutless cowards unwilling to take on
the larger registrars that have arbitrarily denied
legitimate transfer requests, or if they will act to
forcefully put these rogue registrars in their place.

regards,
Danny


--- "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 



      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs