[ispcp] ERRP -- Public comment supporting Michele Neylon and Alan Greenberg

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i am commenting in a personal capacity as a registrant and not as a member of the ISPCP.  i'm commenting in support of the comment posted by Michele Neylon here:

	http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-errp-policy/msg00002.html

i too was a member of the PDP WG, and the implementation team, that worked to put together the ERRP.  and, like Alan and Michele, i'm surprised to learn about the Compliance view that GNSO policy does not automatically flow from registrars to their resellers.  that "pass through" notion has been fundamental to a number of policy WG discussions over the years.  

if the "pass through" idea is invalid, that breaks a lot of stuff not just the ERRP.  to pose the extreme-case question -- is Compliance truly saying that if i were an unscrupulous sort of registrar type person, i could just set up a shell reseller and not bother with adhering with GNSO policy, except those bits that explicitly refer to resellers?

the ERRP issue seems easy enough to resolve.  either "passthrough" exists, in which case calling out the reseller requirements is not required in the ERRP.  or it doesn't exist, in which case the good news is that we can easily fix the problem by inserting the reseller requirement back into the policy.  but the bad news in that case is that resellers are free to ignore all GNSO policy that does not explicitly call them out.  

if this is truly the case, we need an immediate crash review of GNSO policy language to determine what gaps exist between;

- policy that applies to registrars, and 
- policy that applies to their resellers.

i'm having a bit of a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment here.  please clarify this situation.

mikey o'connor

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)