Re: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I don't completely disagree with your statements Bhavin, but to be clear,
the offer has been repeatedly made to both Register.com and Verisign
concerning what gaining registrars must do, or what information we must
provide to them in order to increase the level of comfort to the point with
our (all registrars) processes where they would feel comfortable dropping
their current policy and adopting a default ACK policy more in line with the
rest of the industry. Neither have responded to this offer with any degree
of seriousness. This only leaves me with the conclusion that your proposal
below is equivalent to achieving a compromise without the input from the
most affected parties. In effect, you are asking the majority of registrars
to negotiate this process amongst themselves, reach a bland compromise that
we think that Register.com and Verisign will like and table it for their
approval or dismissal.

Until such time that we get to a point where all parties are serious about
compromise, any efforts in that direction are fruitless. Without that
complete participation, questions concerning modification of policy to the
detriment of the majority of registrars that employ reasonable transfer
policies cannot be taken seriously. In other words, let's work on making
what we have better and stop trying to "please" the one or two registrars
that do not see things in the same manner that most registrars do.

Thanks,

-rwr



Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavint@directi.com>
To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:03 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll


> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>