RE: [registrars] Eligible Nominees

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavint@directi.com>]

Dear Michael,

I was not able to participate in the Telecon. Here are my inputs

1. Is a summary of the telecon going to be posted to the list - that would
help

2. We havent yet finished our ramping up for com/net/org however we have
been doing our registrations through TUCOWS since quite sometime now and
therefore I am very much aware of the nuances and issues related to the
process

Here are my thoughts -

THE ICANN AGREEMENT
===================
- The Agreement itself will HAVE to be changed irrespective of a consensus
between us Registrars, since the agreement wordings are very vague. Firstly
it states that the gaining Registrar must obtain express approval. It does
not state what form this express approval must be in and so each Registrar
is left to his own interpretation ie either approval from an Admin contact,
or a fax, or approval from billing contact or whatever the Gaining Registrar
wants to do

THE GAINING REGISTRAR
=====================
- If the gaining Registrar needs to obtain the approval, there must also be
a standardised fashion of doing so primarily because even obtaining an
approval from the admin contact lets say for instance requires parsing whois
data of different types from different registrars, and does not work all the
time, requireing manual intervention, increasing costs of the process

THE LOSING REGISTRAR
====================
- Because the ICANN Agreement is vague on the express approval bit, Losing
Registrars are forced to take precautions to ensure the Domain is not being
hijacked. There are 2 aspects that a Losing Registrar wishes to take care
of:

1. Ensure that the current owner wants the Transfer to happen

2. Try and win the customer back

Both the above are two separate events that need to be handled separately.
One of them is the Registrars business (trying to win the customer back),
while the other should be mandated in a specific form by ICANN's agreement
in order to avoid fights like the ones we witnessed at Stockholm

PROPOSAL
========
I believe this step by step process may be perfect to suit the above goals -

1. Owner requests transfer

2. Gaining registrar obtains express approval in a specific form (email
form) mandated by the ICANN Agreement.
- This should be an ACK from the Admin cotact (similar to what TUCOWS does)
- As a fallback a fax from the owner may be accepted as approval by the
gaining registrar too

Both the above steps including if possible a sample email/fax template
should be clarified by the ICANN agreement in clear words so that there is
no ambiguity

3. After gaining express approval gaining registrar sends in a transfer
request

4. Losing Registrar now does not need to send any approval email to the
customer at all, primarily because the approval process has been mandated by
ICANN, and therefore the losing Registrar can be sure that the Gaining
Registrar has followed a proper process instead of having made one
themeselves. If the losing Registrar chooses, they may send an email to the
customer asking the customer to renew with them itself and send a special
offer email etc.

The Losing registrar should not be allowed to NACK the trf unless they have
a good reason such as any of the below -

- The domain is on hold due to non payment or dispute
- The domain owner sends in a fax to the losing registrar stating that he
does not want the Domain trferred

5. If the Losing registrar Nacks the trf the gaining registrar would have
the rght to obtain a copy of that fax or reason

6. If the Losing registrar neither acks or nacks the gaing registrar gets
the domain

The above process if you may note is almost similar to the one currently
proposed by ICANN except that the process of Approval was left tp the
Registrar to decide which is scary because i never know what process of
approval will be used by the gaining registrar. However if icann mandates a
process of approval then the losing registrar can be sure that atleast the
gaining registrar would have to follow the mandated steps

The above process is complete and serves the three important purposes -

1. comfort to customer and gaining registrar
2. surity to losing registrar that a proper process is followed in the trf
and therefore the domain is not being hijacked
3. chance to the losing registrar to try and win back the customer

There is one tiny objection that may be raised, ie even though ICANN
mandates a process how does the losing registrar know that the gaining
registrar has followed it. This case can be taken care of if we so wish, by
the process that was suggested by Eliott Noss. Infact if you have a standard
process and the ICANN agreement even lays out the exact wordings of the
email sent out to the ADMIN CONTACT by the GAINING REGISTRAR, then a copy of
the express approval in a standard format may also be sent to the losing
registrar to close the loop

THE ABOVE PROCESS IS COMPLETE.

There is one more caveat that we may add. If losing registrars are still
uncomfortable (though I believe that the abv process is incomplete), we
could add one more aspect. The primary discomfort comes from the fact that
the losing registrar and the gaining registrar are two separate parties. We
could build a comon unbranded trfer website by getting together all
Registrars. The process would remain thre same except that an em,ail that
goes to the admin contact would use a URL of this website where the admin
contact would then go and approve the trf. This data would then be available
to both the losing and gaining registrar. The maintenance of this website
would be in the hands of a third party whom all registrars can trust, and
fund as a consortium. It could even be the registry (OUCH FORGET I SAID THAT
:) ) or ICANN or DNSO or the constituency.

Thats my 2 bits

Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
CEO
Directi
----------------------------
91-22-6372982/3276/0650/3332
http://www.directi.com
----------------------------



> Bhavin:
>
> I do not believe you were able to participate in Friday's teleconference.
> Will you be able to participate in next Wednesday's scheduled
> teleconference? What is your company's position with regard to transfers.
> Has you company been experiencing an increase in NACs. I am beginning to
> compile this information as part of the report that the
> constituency will be
> sending to the DNSO Names Counsel if it is approved on Wednesday.
>
> Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 3:10 PM
> > To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Eligible Nominees
> >
> >
> > Dan hasnt yet put up the list of those who are operational under
> > .biz .info
> > etc.
> >
> > This should be added too.... we are one of them
> >
> > bhavin
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 11:53 PM
> > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: [registrars] Eligible Nominees
> > >
> > >
> > > Listed below are all operational registrars per ICANN's web site. In
> > > accordance, with the newly amended by-laws any operational
> registrar may
> > > make a nomination.  This list will be updated over the next
> > > couple of weeks
> > > until June 23, the close of the nomination period. Then those
> > people that
> > > have been nominated will be placed on a ballot and eligible
> constituency
> > > members (up to date fee payment) will be able to vote. In
> > accordance with
> > > the meeting in Stockholm, should I be nominated and run for a
> > > position, the
> > > registrar name counsel representatives and Elizabeth
> Porteneuve from the
> > > DNSO will prepare, circulate and then tabulate the ballots.
> > >
> > > The positions up for election are: Chair, Secretariat, Treasurer, and
> > > Technology Officer.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > P.S. I am working on the fee payment list and the eligible
> > voter list. Due
> > > to the dynamics of the registrar marketplace, there are some
> designated
> > > voting representatives that are no longer associated with their
> > > employer. I
> > > will be sending out the list of designated voters and the
> > > constituency form
> > > should a registrar decide to update their designated agent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1 eNameCo (United States)
> > > 123 Easy Domain Names, Inc. dba Signature Domains (United States)
> > > 123 Registration, Inc. (United States)
> > > 1stDomain.Net, a division of G+D International LLC (United States)
> > > A Technology Company, Inc. (Canada)
> > > Abacus America, Inc. d/b/a Names4Ever (United States)
> > > Active ISP ASA (Norway)
> > > Address Creation (United States)
> > > All West Communications, Inc. d/b/a AWRegistry (United States)
> > > Alldomains.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > America Online, Inc. dba AOL and/or CompuServe on behalf of
> > America Online
> > > (United States)
> > > BB Online UK Ltd. (United Kingdom)
> > > BulkRegister.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > Capital Networks Pty Ltd. (Australia)
> > > Catalog.com Inc. (United States)
> > > Computer Data Networks dba shop4domain.com and
> > netonedomains.com (Kuwait)
> > > CORE Council of Internet Registrars (Switzerland)
> > > CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba joker.com (Germany)
> > > DADA SPA (Italy)
> > > Domain Bank, Inc. (United States)
> > > Domain Registration Services (United States)
> > > Domaininfo AB (Sweden)
> > > DomainPeople, Inc. (Canada)
> > > DomainRegistry.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > Domainsite.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > DomainZoo.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > Dotster, Inc. (United States)
> > > Eastern Communications Co., Ltd. (China)
> > > Easyspace Ltd. (United Kingdom)
> > > EnetRegistry.com Corporation (United States)
> > > eNom, Inc. (United States)
> > > EPAG Enter-Price Multimedia AG (Germany)
> > > France Telecom/Transpac (France)
> > > Gabia Inc. (Korea)
> > > GANDI (France)
> > > GKG.Net, Inc. (United States)
> > > Go Daddy Software, Inc. (United States)
> > > HANGANG Systems Inc. dba doregi.com (Republic of Korea)
> > > iHoldings.com Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com (United States)
> > > InnerWise, Inc. d/b/a ItsYourDomain.com (United States)
> > > InterAccess Company (United States)
> > > Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a directNIC (United States)
> > > Interdomain, SA (Spain)
> > > Internet Domain Registrars d/b/a Registrars.com and IDR
> (Canada & United
> > > States)
> > > interQ Incorporated (Japan)
> > > Key-Systems GmbH d/b/a domaindiscount24.com (Germany)
> > > Melbourne IT Limited, d/b/a Internet Names WorldWide (Australia)
> > > Mr. DomReg.com, Inc. (Canada)
> > > Namebay (Monaco)
> > > NameEngine Inc. (United States)
> > > NamesDirect.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > NameSecure.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > Netbenefit PLC (United Kingdom)
> > > Netpia.com Inc. (Republic of Korea)
> > > Network Solutions, Inc. Registrar (United States)
> > > Nominalia Internet SL (Spain)
> > > NORDNET (France)
> > > Omnis Network, LLC (United States)
> > > OnlineNIC, Inc. dba China-channel.com (China)
> > > Parava Networks, Inc. d/b/a RegistrateYa.com and nAAme.com
> > > (United States &
> > > Mexico)
> > > pAsia, Inc. (Taiwan)
> > > Primus Telecommunications Pty. Ltd. d/b/a PrimusDomain and
> PlanetDomain
> > > (Australia)
> > > Procurement Services International, Inc. (PSI-Japan) (Japan)
> > > Register.com, Inc. (United States)
> > > Research Institute for Computer Science, Inc. (Japan)
> > > Schlund + Partner AG (Germany)
> > > Secura GmbH (Germany)
> > > Speednames, Inc. (United States, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden)
> > > Stargate Communications, Inc. (United States)
> > > Talk.Com, Inc. (United States)
> > > The Name It Corporation (United States)
> > > The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC (United States)
> > > TierraNet Inc. (United States)
> > > Total Web Solutions Limited trading as TotalRegistrations
> > (United Kingdom)
> > > Tucows, Inc. (United States & Canada)
> > > Virtual Internet (UK) Ltd., a subsidiary of Virtual Internet
> > Plc. (United
> > > Kingdom)
> > > Web Express, Inc. (United States & Taiwan)
> > > Xin Net Corp. (China)
> > > YesNIC Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea)
> > >
> >
>