RE: [registrars] New Straw Poll

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@nameengine.com>]

Here's NameEngine's ballot.  Thanks Michael for your work.

Antony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 11:48 PM
> 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?
> 
> [x ]Yes
> [ ]No

[You can state anything you want to...]

> 
> Q2: The registrars support a xfer policy that protects consumer's best
> interest?
> 
> [ ]Yes
> [ ]No

[Of course, but why is this a question?  We're for good, we're against
evil.  NameEngine abstains.]

> 
> 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?
> 
> [ x]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?
> 
> [x ] 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

I abstain - it seems that the question is asking whether if all of these
things were done, would it be OK to auto-NACK.  Our answer to that is
no.  But we don't need any contractual changes if the auto-NACKers would
stop. From our perspective, whether contractual changes are needed has
little to do with the implementation (or not) of these policies.

> 
> 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

Abstain again - no problems with the idea, but I'm concerned with the
cost.  I don't want certain registrars to come up with ludicrous
"verification costs" ostensibly designed to protect consumers, but
really to protect their market share

> 
> 
> 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
>