[ga] Transfers Final Report

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

The Transfers Task Force Final Report and Recommendations have been posted:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regist

rars.html

My only objection to the document (after a quick scan) stems from the 
dilution of language subsequent to the input from the Implementation 
Committee (which I view as having been unduly dominated by the registrars).

Prior language stated:  "The Registrant must be informed of and have access 
to, the published documentation of the specific transfer process of their 
current Registrar."

The new language reads:  "Registrars should make reasonable efforts to inform 
registrants of and provide access to, the published documentation of the 
specific transfer process(es) employed by the Registrar." 

What does the registrant community gain by letting registrars off the hook on 
this matter?  There is a world of difference between "must" and "should" in 
policy language, and leaving such matters open-ended serves only to allow 
certain registrars to avoid their obligations at the expense of the 
registrant right to be properly informed.

Further, I fail to understand why this was within the purview of the 
implementation committee, as clearly every registrar has the capability to 
post documentation of the transfer process.  How could this possibly be 
construed as an implementation issue?

Finally, my thanks to Ross Rader for his diligence in bringing this transfers 
issue to some type of closure.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html