RE: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Elliot,

As we've said many times, our position is that we are simply doing what
the policy doesn't expressly prohibit, and for a what we believe to be a
very good reason. That said, in anticipation of this adivosry we
have/are changing our internal policy to some degree. And of course,
we'd fully participate in any PDP on the subject.
 
 
Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
From: elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, April 04, 2008 7:28 am
To: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


remember tim, from many of our perspective you have changed policy 
with your unilateral actions. this is simply a response to that.

as I have suggested to you MANY times publicly, I encourage you to 
change policy through the methods you described. we would be happy to 
participate in that process. unfortunately your approach here is much 
like when the telcos call for "free markets".

On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> 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
>
>