<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
tim, I would like to tell you how the first half of the last
paragraph you wrote reads for me. I do not say this to be provocative
but to tell you how I look at it (and judging by the number of people
who came up to me in delhi to thank me after the RC meeting how a
great number of others look at it).
you said:
"We (Registrars, the ICANN community, etc.) cannot operate
effeciently if after years of allowing certain activities based on
what a policy actually says, we then try to change that activity
through *Do what I meant. Not what I said.* enforcement principles."
I read:
"We (Registrars, the ICANN community, etc.) cannot operate
effeciently if after years of allowing certain activities based on
ignoring a policy, ICANN then tries to change that activity through
actually enforcing the principles."
I share your frustration in the fact that they did not enforce this
earlier and let you engage in these practices for years before doing
something. that is a legitimate gripe. when you talk about a
dangerous precedent, however, there is none more dangerous than
effectively setting policy by engaging in practice that ignores policy.
hopefully we can all move forward on this and, first stop engaging in
the practices which violate existing policy then, together, improve
it to deal with some of the concerns you have in the existing policy.
Regards
Elliot
On 5-Apr-08, at 7:09 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Paul,
Yes, this is what ICANN now says the policy means. Note however,
that it
doesn't change the policy. In my opinion, the purpose of the
advisory is
to make clear how ICANN Staff interprets the policy, and how it
intends
to enforce the policy. That doesn't mean that all registrars will have
the same interpretation, or that further disputes upon enforcement
attempts regarding it won't occur.
That is why it's important that we follow the appropriate process to
make the changes we think are necessary to the policy itself. Leaving
less open to interpretation will help prevent distracting disputes
over
the policy.
We (Registrars, the ICANN community, etc.) cannot operate
effeciently if
after years of allowing certain activities based on what a policy
actually says, we then try to change that activity through *Do what I
meant. Not what I said.* enforcement principles. That makes no
sense at
all to me. And while you may not be affected by it this time, I would
hope you can at least see the dangerous precedent this could set.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Fwd: ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, April 05, 2008 1:15 am
To: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Looks like I didn't read the advisory properly when I wrote this:
I'm glad that's been clarified, although I suppose "A registrant
change
to Whois information" could be interpreted to mean that an
Administrative, Billing, Technical or Name Server change doesn't fall
under the same rule. :/
According to the advisory...
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm
"Registrant updates to Whois contact details is not enumerated as a
valid basis to deny a transfer request in the Transfer Policy. In
addition, ordinary changes to Whois data fields are not evidence of
fraud and therefore not a basis to deny a domain name transfer
request."
That's a little clearer, and I wanted to follow up so that I didn't
leave the wrong impression. Having said that, it would have been
clearer still if they omitted the word Registrant. Of course it
doesn't mean that the same rule doesn't apply to an admin or tech
making a whois update, but seeing as they are trying to clarify an
existing disputed policy they should be as concise as possible.
With all respect, to the comment about *Do what I mean, not what I
say?*, I feel that ICANN have now said what they mean. I applaud all
registrars who will change their policies to be in line with what
ICANN meant, and have now said.
~Paul
:DomainIt
At 08:50 AM 4/4/2008, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|