RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll

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

that is the primary issue Ross.

unless the agreement specifically lays out a form of approval the losing
registrar will never be confortable with the fact that a domain is not being
hijacked. I am STRONGLY against letting the method of auth be upto the
gaining registrar, because in that case I believe Register.com or other
registrars wold be right in feeling scared to let a domain go not knowing
that the gaining registrar has employed correct procedures for obtaining
approval.

i believe if you want auto-nacking to be accepted by all registrars then the
form of approval for a gainging registrar should be well defined without any
ambiguity with well defined fallback procedures incase the email address of
the appropriate contact dfefined in the express approval fails. I believe
both the questions you are trying to get scarpped represent those fall back
procedures


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:03 PM
> To: Bhavin Turakhia; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
>
>
> I'd actually like to see those two questions scrapped and reissued as:
>
> "Should the form of authorization remain at the discretion of each gaining
> registrar as stated under the current policy?"
>
> Thanks,
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
> Tucows Inc.
> t. 416.538.5492
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavint@directi.com>
> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:01 AM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
>
>
> > I would proposse one more question -
> >
> > 3. Should Registrars accept fax on the Registrants Letterhead
> as proof of
> > authorization? Yes__ No__
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of CORE Secretariat (W)
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:54 PM
> > > To: Michael D. Palage
> > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > I hate to intervene when a poll is launched, but two of the
> > > questions here
> > > are unclear.
> > >
> > > > 2. Should a standardized transfer authorization template be
> > > required by all
> > > > Registrars to verify a transfer request? Yes__ No__
> > >
> > > By the gaining registrar or by the losing registrar?
> > >
> > > > 3. Should Registrars accept notarized hard copy transfer
> > > requests as proof
> > > > of authorization? Yes__ No__
> > >
> > > I suspect the objective of the question is to ask if notarised
> > > hard copies
> > > should be the standard solution if email verification is not
> > > possible. Given
> > > the difficulty in notarising documents in most other countries
> > > than the US,
> > > our answer would be NO in that sense. But as the question stands
> > > now, anyone
> > > would to answer with YES, in the sense that an existing notarised
> > > instruction
> > > should of course be accepted.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Werner
> > >
> > > --
> > > CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org
> > > WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
> > > Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat@corenic.org
> > >
> >
>