Re: [ga] Proposed Advisory

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon -

You are well aware that there are parallel processes ongoing related  
to transfers policy. The GNSO track solely relates to policy  
development activities related to improving and clarifying the  
existing policy based on the operational and customer experience so  
far. This work is ongoing and will likely result in several  
recommendations for small tweaks to the existing policy. The staff  
track relates to enforcing the existing policies based on ICANN's  
interpretation of the existing policy. The staff's process has not  
been "set aside" as you say, nor are their actions representative of  
an attempt to alter existing policy.
Regardless of your position and attempt to spin the issue, it is  
exceptionally clear, to me at least, that the "security policies" of  
the two largest registrars are a flagrant violation of the existing  
policy and fly in the face of the staff advisory that has been issued.
The existing policy provides no basis upon which a registrar may deny  
a transfer of a registration when the transfer request comes after a  
contact update. In fact, these very updates are often necessary in  
order to affect a transfer in the first place.
In any event, the original question wasn't to you, but to Kieren. I  
too would be interested in hearing more regarding what the status of  
this advisory is now that it has been posted for public comment for an  
extended period of time.
-ross

On 3-Dec-07, at 5:48 PM, Nevett, Jonathon 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
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen