RE: [registrars] NSI Transfer Procedure

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

We are receiving many complaints at eNom as well.
The funny thing is that our customers who wish to do
transfers are complaining about Network Solutions, not eNom.

I reiterate eNom's stance from the Stockholm meeting:
No answer from the losing registrar's client 
should be an "ACK" by the losing registrar.
This will benefit the industry and cause
less acrimony between registrants and registrars
and among registrars in general.  
When one of us looks bad, it rubs off on all of us. 
This issue is beginning to spiral out of control
and blow up on all of us.


This issue is about a hostage situation where
the registrant wishes their name to be transferred, *not*
a slamming situation where we have a rouge registrar
transferring names indiscriminately or maliciously.
One thing that is saving our industry from slamming, is
there is an economic bias *against* slamming, because
the losing registrar must get paid by the registrant
or else the losing registrar would lose the $6 transfer fee.
The issue is about trust between us registrars.

I beleive that in this extremely competitive situation
we find ourselves in, some of us are trying to protect
our market shares by "making sure" the registrant
really wishes to leave, and inadvertently, by making
it more difficult for the registrants to switch, these
registrars may be reinforcing the willingness of the registrants
to switch. A terrible spiral consisting of an 
increasing desire to switch and an increasing
difficulty to switch increasingly exasperates and frustrates 
all of our customers.  Which leads to irate registrars.

Here is an example complaint we have received:
"I received an Email from Netsol that told me how to return it if I wanted
to transfer to enom, Inc. I did it. Then I received emails from Netsol
saying that since it wasn't "confirmed", they weren't transferring them. I
emailed BACK and asked them what confused them in my "Yes - confirmation"
emails...and I've heard nothing. 2 of these expire tomorrow. Any clue as to
what to do?" (I have all the to/from emails to/from NSI and this
customer if anyone wants to see them)

This is causing another spiral:
our customers repeatedly put in requests to transfer
the same names over and over (some are lists of names), which will
eventually 
load the registry and the losing registrar's systems, 
and is also, IMO, causing further damage 
to NSI's reputation and to the industry's.

A "No answer" = "ACK" because:

1) The gaining registrar has authorization from the registrant already.
If you are a losing registrar and dispute this, please ask the gaining
registrar to supply the authorization proof.

2) The current registry transfer policy says that if the registrar 
does not give an answer it is to be interpreted as an "ACK".  
This existing precedent should apply to the registrant as well.

3) Many times the email address in the losing registrar's database
is wrong.  Soemtimes this is due to the fact that the registrant
registered the name at the losing registrar via a reseller who
screwed it up.  The registrant's email address should not be 
used to identify the registrant's identity.
Any registrars that are using the email address to verify the registrant's
identity should update their systems to a more robust/secure method.

4) Some registrants do not know who their current registrar is because
for example, they registered it via the losing registrars's resellers,
therefore
when they get an mail from someone they don't know (the losing registrar), 
they do not know what to do with it, or are confused.

5) All the registrars will have a different system and it will
get very confusing for the registrants.  For example, NSI now
requires the registrants to put for example
"[NIC-010311.82ca]:ABANKINVESTMENT.COM:TRANSFER=YES"
into the subject line of the return email, and another registrar
will have some other method such as clicking on a link, or maybe
a more difficult method, god forbid.


The long term solution is for the registry to
implement a mechanism such as the one in the EPP,
where the registrant takes a key to the gaining registrar to verify
his/her identity, which would make this problem go away

But in the meantime: "no answer" = ACK.


Paul Stahura
eNom, Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Forrester 
> [mailto:michael.forrester@totalwebsolutions.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 1:50 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] NSI Transfer Procedure
> 
> 
> Hello all fair Registrars,
> 
> I would like to raise again with the group issues surrounding 
> the change in
> transfer procedure adopted by Verisign Registrar.  Today 
> Verisign Registrar
> has modified its transfer procedure so that the admin contact 
> is the primary
> point of contact for the acknowledgement of a domain transfer 
> from them.
> This has meant that we have been unable to transfer hundreds 
> of domain names
> as a result of this so called minor modification.  I know 
> this issue has
> already been discussed to a degree at the ICANN meetings in 
> Stockholm but I
> feel this change has caused us major problems in the 
> operation of our own
> registrar database.  By invoking this change I feel Verisign 
> Registrar is
> acting anti-competitively and outside its Registrars 
> Accreditation Agreement
> with ICANN.  Therefore I think this issue should be given 
> more consideration
> very soon before transferring domains from Verisign Registrar stops
> completely.
> 
> I know other registrars have been suffering similar problems 
> as a result of
> this so it is not just a single registrars problem.  In essence what
> Verisign Registrar is doing is delaying the transfer process and thus
> enabling the domain to auto-renew with them.  This is ludicrous and
> anti-competitive and provides a barrier to the transfer process.
> 
> The last thing I want to have to do is inform my development 
> staff they have
> to reprogram our transfer system and to have to tell our 
> customers that
> things are now done differently.
> 
> I understand there is a bigger issue here of having a common transfer
> process between registrars but it is obvious to me that this change by
> Verisign Registrar has a hidden agenda.
> 
> I would like some support/feedback from the group on this issue.
> 
> Miesha Vukasinovic.
> 
>