RE: [registrars] Tucows Position On Transfer Policies

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

Ross,

the current policy specifies a recourse after the evnt has already occurred,
and therefore still does not generate enuf comfort. Meanwhile I believe the
downside mentioned by Bob is not really that great a downside. For instance
lets look at this process

1. the agreement lays down the specific format (possibly with words) of
email to be sent to the SPECIFIC CONTACT (possibly admin contact) and allows
for local translations of the same, by the gaining registrar.

2. Incase the SPECIFIC CONTACT is not contactible due to an invalid address,
the agreement lays out an alternative fallback process (such as a fax /
notarised document) that the gaining registrar must recv

Now if the abv process is defined the number of loopholes is far lesser than
stating it simply as "express approval" which leaves much room for
concern.... to the extent that someone on the list mentioned that if as a
registrar i know my customer i may treat a phone call as an express
approval. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I AM SCARED OF. What then prevents a
registrar/registrant from using that as an excuse/abuse.

I doubt if the abv process does not suffice any particular registrars model.
I believe a majority may already be following the same abv process. it
simply needs to be made legally binding to ensure comfort levels.

This would also ensure that registrars who fudge this email sent to admin
contact with their own marketing data and thus confuse the end customer,
cannot now do so without violating the agreement.


> > commendable.... like i said my only concern is with those gaining
> registrars
> > who out of neglect or choice do not use a process that lends me comfort.
> if
> > a process followed by the gaining registrar for gaining express approval
> is
> > formally defined by the agreement itself, this issue would be resolved.
>
> I'm still not sure that I understand this Bhavin. The current policy
> specifically provides recourse to the losing registrar in situations where
> you do not feel comfortable with specific transactions.
>
> The downside to what you are proposing is exactly what Bob
> Connelly brought
> up yesterday - registrars employ a broad and varied number of business
> models. Logically then, the new policy that standardizes the process you
> describe must also be broad and varied. The more complex any solution is,
> the more likely we going to introduce new and unanticipated loopholes into
> the system. These loopholes are precisely the kind of thing that we must
> avoid.
>
> -rwr
>