RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Elana,

see below

> 
> 
> Mike - thanks for working on this issue while on vacation.
> 
> What is the time frame for responding to the questions below?
> 
> The questions appear to be slanted in one direction.  But 
> rather than fiddle
> with these questions, please add the following questions to 
> fully reflect
> yesterday's conversation:
> 
> -- Do the registrars favor a longer transfer period? (if yes, 
> we need to
> approach the registry about this possibility)

Not if it means that a "no answer" still is a NACK 
Since it is up to the losing registrar to maintain
accurate whois info up till the transfer, if the losing
registrar cannot get ahold of the registrant, or if
the registrant does not reply, it should be ACKed.

Plus, 
1)the gaining registar already has gained the authority
from the registrant that the transfer should happen.  If
you doubt this, why don't you ask the gaining registrar
to verify it by sending you the form of the transfer authority?
2) there is an economic disincentive to slamming. 
Dan Halloran said at the Stockholm meeting that he had received
no complaints of slamming.
Who is complaining of slamming?  and if so, slamming by whom?
3) The RRP, which we have all already agreed to use, says that 
a "no answer" from the registrar is an ACK.


> 
> -- If changes to the process of verifying a transfer request, 
> including
> template email with clear links and in several languages; a 
> notice to the
> requesting registrar; and a separate process for customers 
> with a large
> number of domain names were implemented, would the issue of 
> end users not
> responding to a verification notice be minimized and 
> therefore not require a
> change in the agreements?

No. 
What does a notice to the requesting registrar do?
We already know we requested the transfer.
A separate process?  Special cases are costly.
How large is large?

Again
No.
And especially not if it means that a "no answer" still = NACK 

End users do not respond all the time.
I bet that if you sent a message that said 
"reply to this email and you get million dollars"
the majority would not respond. 
A no response does not mean that the registrant did not
want a million dollars or the name transferred.
A no response could mean any of these things:
1) The registrant wants the name transfered but is out-of-town
and cannot get email.
2) The registrant wants the name transfered but the email
in the whois for the admin contact is not the same
as the registrant's contact email address or is simply wrong.
3) The registrant wants the name transfered and the email
in the whois is correct but the losing registrar made a mistake
in sending it, or the registrant's email provider was down and
the mail didn't get bounced back to the losing registrar for a few days.
4) The registrant wants the name transfered but they've shut
off all email from the losing registrar because the losing registrar
spams them all the time.
5) The registrant wants the name transfered but they don't speak
any of the languages in your email, so they ignore it.
6) The registrant wants the name transfered but they purchased the
name via a reseller of yours and therefore the registrant
does not know the losing registrar from Adam, and so they ignore
your email to them.
7) The registrant wants the name transfered but they use your system
so infrequently they do not know how to change their email
address from that one they stopped using years ago.
8) The registrant wants the name transfered but they put
a fake email address in the whois so they would not get spammed
by all these marketing companies out there who blast email
to addresses they find in whois contacts.
9) The registrant wants the name transfered, so they went through
the gaining register's processes, then get an email from you,
and ignore it, because they already went through the gaining
registrar's process. 
10) The registrant wants the name transfered, but your system
for accepting the reply emails is down and you never get their
ACK reply message.
11) The registrant wants the name transfered, but the registrar
did not collect the email address of the registrant and the
registrant and the admin contact are two different companies
who rarely communicate (only "The name and postal address of 
the registrant" is required to be collected by the registrar)
....
101)
...
1001) etc.

Do all your processes changes cover all these likely instances?
a "no answer" = ACK does, and at a zero additional cost.

> 
> -- Since there are concerns on the part of requesting 
> registrars that some
> losing registrars may not be allowing transfers to occur and 
> concerns on the
> part of losing registrars that registrants are getting slammed or some
> requesting registrars are not getting the appropriate 
> authorization from an
> authorized representative, should the registrar constituency 
> explore an
> independent verification model?

Which losing registrars are complaining of slamming?
There is an economic disincentive to slamming,
where is it occuring?

An independant verification model would
1) get overloaded. We do about 200 transfers
per day.  Tell you what: I'll send you the signed,
faxed transfer documents we receive for all transfers
where register.com is the losing registrar.  
What is your Fax number? 
2) be expensive. Who is going to pay for it?
3) still not work if a "no answer" = NACK

> 
> Regards, Elana
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael D. Palage <michael@palage.com>
> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:35 AM
> Subject: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
> 
> 
> > Attached please find the minutes from yesterday's 
> teleconference. Listed
> > below is a straw poll that Chris from DomainPeople 
> prepared. I think he
> did
> > a good job and therefore submit this ballot for the straw 
> poll discussed
> > during the teleconference.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > P.S. As mentioned today. I am suppose to be on vacation :-) 
> and therefore
> > will have limited access to email over the next several 
> days. So I may not
> > be as timely responding to people's email as usual.
> >
> >
> > 1. Since gaining Registrar has obtained and retained proof 
> of transfer
> > request, should the losing Registrar should only NAC the request if
> > explicitly requested by the Registrant.  Yes__ No__
> >
> > 2. Should a standardized transfer authorization template be 
> required by
> all
> > Registrars to verify a transfer request? Yes__ No__
> >
> > 3. Should Registrars accept notarized hard copy transfer 
> requests as proof
> > of authorization? Yes__ No__
> >
> > 4. Is the reconfirmation / autoNAKing process that a select 
> few Registrars
> > currently enforce (i.e. requiring a Registrant to 
> acknowledge a Registrar
> > transfer request for a second time) an acceptable and fair 
> practice for
> the
> > Internet community in general?  Yes__ No__
> >
> >