Re: [registrars] FYI re: Transfers

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom - business decisions are made on your interpretation of a situation. 
In this case, we've all made a best guess as to what the policy meant 
and based our implementations on that. I'm willing to bet that at least 
one of us guessed wrong. Those that guess wrong, too bad - its called 
non-compliance. However, in this case, we're all a bit confused as to 
what the policy actually says. ICANN needs to clarify what it says, and 
there are several processes under way by which they will do so.   Those 
that implemented based on the intent of the policy are likely going to 
be fine, those that went out of their way to bend the rules in favor of 
some twisted business logic likely not.
Inappropriate is ripping off registrants to line your own pocket.

Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
>  
>
> The original intent should certainly be documented and considered to see how
> much of it is still relevant.  But the starting point for any proposed
> changes must be what has been published and relied upon by the entire
> industry.
>
> The internet today is different than it was a few years ago.  While I do not
> doubt the original intent can be accurately captured, I have no idea how
> much of it is still relevant.  Nor do I know the costs required to comply
> with a policy rewritten to better reflect "original intent".
>
> Business decisions, by necessity, must be based on what has been published
> by ICANN as official policy.
>
> I'm sure there are registrars who were involved in the original process, who
> developed their software based on intent rather than the published policy.
> However, many registrars were not involved in the original process.  They
> relied on the written concensus policy posted by ICANN.  Software has been
> written and business processes developed based on what was published.
>
> To change the current concensus policy without community consultation would
> therefore be inappropriate.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Barrett
> EnCirca, Inc
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 5:42 PM
> To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'elliot noss'; 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FYI re: Transfers
>
>
> John Berryhill wrote:
>
> > > when the rules were created the
> > > MEANINGS were clear.
> > I promise you that in every contract dispute, both sides are extremely 
> > clear on what the contract means.  As I mentioned, reasonable minds 
> > can differ, and frequently do, in good faith.
> Problem is, in this instance, the policy as written, was never intended to
> become the policy as applied.
>
> When the task force was documenting the policy, we were told time and time
> again not to sweat the legal stuff because it was always the plan to have
> the ICANN legal staff tighten up the wording during the implementation
> phase. Louis left right around this time and I suspect that this detail kind
> of just got dropped on the floor during the transition. I didn't really
> think twice about it, after all, I was generally happy with the language
> that was in there and not being a lawyer, wasn't informed enough to be
> concerned about the vagueness that you correctly point out.
>
> Anyways the salient point is - the intent of the policy is extremely clear
> and is quite well captured by the document. There were some areas that were
> overlooked, but these can be changed through the PDP. While there might be
> more than one way to interpret the transfer policy, there was only one
> intent of the GNSO. Its not like this is the U.S. 
> Constitution and we have to guess at the state of mind of the drafters was.
> I'm still around, as are the others, you can simply ask.
>
> For instance, around expiries, we were very simply giving Louis instructions
> that Registrars can't deny a domain transfer for a name that has expired,
> unless the registrant didn't pay for the just-previous registration period
> for some reason (which is mostly a boundary case - registrations don't make
> it through an entire year or more without a bill being paid by someone at
> some point).
>
> This is the policy. It is very clear in my mind. What isn't clear were the
> words that were used to express the policy. Per the original agreement we
> had with staff, I think its perfectly reasonable for them to clean up the
> vagueness outside of a PDP or community consultation provided that the
> changes are consistent with the original policy intent. At the very least,
> this would be more productive than paying lawyers to talk circles around one
> another.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
>
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> t. 416.538.5492

--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492