Re: [registrars] New Straw Poll

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

> 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
> [X]No
>
> Q2: The registrars support a xfer policy that protects consumer's best
> interest?
>
> [X]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:
>
> [X]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
> [XNo
>
Both statistically and historically speaking, the current five day window
has proven to be more than sufficient in cases where there is no
interference from the losing registrar. It is only when the losing registrar
interjects superfluous process that the five days becomes too short. The
primary reason being that when a registrant undertakes a transfer, they
expect to undertake a verification process with the gaining registrar (as
the gaining registrar will have educated them about the process by which a
transfer occurs).

> 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
> [X] No

...but only if AutoACK is not the default policy.

>
> 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
> [X] 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
> [X] No
>
>
...The current audit functions of Exhibit B do not currently preclude this
type of action. Registrars that do not have sufficient comfort with the
majority of policy in place are urged to implement an audit of verification
that provides them with the comfort they require as opposed to implementing
obstructive policy.

> 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.
>
> [X] Yes
> [ ] No
>
>
>