I agree that the advisory doesn't completely clear up the issues. But
that's primarily because the policy itself isn't all that clear on a
number of issues.
I think the right way to solve some of the ambiguity is through an
appropriate bottom-up consensus process. It would be a dangerous
precedent for us all to allow advisories and clarafications to change
policy, even if what was intended appears different from what is
written
in the policy.
Hundreds of registrars have come on board since the transfer policy
process took place. Many are creds of registrars that existed at the
time, but many are not. Are they expected to go back through the
mountainous archives of dicussions to try and figure out what was
intended? Is it reasonable to expect that we operate under the
principle
of *Do what I mean, not what I say?* I think that's ridiculous.
There will likely be one or more PDPs on various transfer policy
issues
coming up. We all need to pay close attention to those and be sure
that
our input is as clear and timely as we expect the output to be.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 04, 2008 4:00 am
To: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer
request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future
registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and
I do not think that this clarification leads to anything. If you want
to charge for transfers during AGP, you simply change the owner on
expiration day and charge whatever you think the customer is able to
pay.
Marcus