RE: [registrars] New Straw Poll

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

Michael,

this is still incomplete. This talks of a standardised template that the
losing registrar must send in case of the tranefr. it misses following
questions

1. do registrars think a standardised multilingual template must be sent out
by the gaining registrar to a CONTRACTUALLY SPECIFIED Contact

{ } Yes
{ } No

2. do registrars think that the losing registrar must send out a
confirmation email AT ALL?

{ } Yes
{ } No
{ } NO Only if a standardised specified contractual process is established
for the gaining registrar to obtain express approval

I believe there have been several discussions abt these questions on the
list and it is important they be added

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:18 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] New Straw Poll
> Importance: High
>
>
> Listed below is the revised straw poll. I apologize for the delay
> but I have
> tried to run these questions by several people to make them as
> objective as
> possible. I have even included several questions that a registrar
> employing
> an autoNAC policy asked to be included. Thanks for those that responded to
> the original straw poll. As I previously stated in last week's
> teleconference, the next Names Counsel meeting is June 29th.
> There will be a
> seven day voting window on this ballot.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Q1: The current xfer policy in exhibit B of the
> registrar/registry contract
> is currently written from the perspective of what a gaining registrar must
> do. The policy is silent on what affirmative actions a losing
> registrar may
> take aside from requesting verification from the gaining
> registrar. Because
> the current policy does not prohibit a losing registrar from imposing
> additional safeguards in the transfer policy, a growing number of losing
> registrars are imposing safeguards that conflict with the policies and
> standard operating procedures that a majority of registrars have employed
> since the beginning of the test bed period. Given this difference of
> opinion, can be stated that there are ambiguities in the current xfer
> policy?
>
> [ ]Yes
> [ ]No
>
> Q2: The registrars support a xfer policy that protects consumer's best
> interest?
>
> [ ]Yes
> [ ]No
>
> Q3: Registrars believe that the best way to protect a consumer's best
> interest when: (1) a gaining registrar has obtained authorization from an
> entity with legal authority to act on behalf of the registrant; and (2) a
> losing registrar sends an email notification to the registrant;
> and (3) the
> registrant fails to affirmatively respond to the losing
> registrar's inquiry
> is for the losing registrar to:
>
> [ ]autoACK the transfer, except in special circumstances (i.e. rouge
> registrar, special instructions from a registrant, etc.)
> [ ]autoNAC the transfer
>
> Q4: Do the registrars favor a longer transfer period at the registry?
>
> [ ]Yes
> [ ]No
>
> Q.5. Do the registrars favor a standard multi-lingual template that all
> losing registrars should send to a registrant when requesting verification
> on a transfer request?
>
> [ ] Yes
> [ ] No
>
> Q.6. To date the following recommendations have been put forward on behalf
> of certain registrars as methods for minimizing the current xfer problem:
> (1) single notification by losing registrar in bulk transaction (greater
> than 5 domain names); (2) simultaneous email notification sent to gaining
> registrar; (3) uniform email template (multi-languages) sent by losing
> registrar; and (4) a longer time window at the registry to allow for
> transfers. If all of these recommendations were implemented would this in
> your opinion eliminate the majority of the current xfer problems that have
> been discussed to date and eliminate the need to change the current
> agreements?
>
> [ ] Yes - these proposals would eliminate the need for contractual change
> [ ] No - these proposals do not go far enough, contractual change still
> needed
>
> Q.7: 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?
>
> [ ] Yes
> [ ] No
>
>
> Q.8 Because of the alleged ambiguities in the current registrar/registry
> contract and the lack of any governing contract with ICANN on
> this specific
> issue, a policy change in accordance with Section 4 of the
> registrar/registry contract is the only option to legally enforce any new
> xfer policy an all ICANN accredited registrars. Do the registrars support
> putting forth the xfer policy before the names counsel to begin the policy
> implementation guidelines as set forth in Section 4.
>
> [ ] Yes
> [ ] No
>
>
>