[registrars] RE: registrar transfers

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

Elana,

Thank you for this update.

In order to better understand Register.com's new position on this subject,
some further clarification would be appreciated. I have been on vacation
since you issued this statement and noticed that there was no response from
your firm to earlier questions similar to this posed on this mailing list. I
hope that you will be able to take the time out to answer these very
important questions so that Tucows, and the rest of the constituency as a
whole, can evaluate your new policy with the benefit of all of the relevant
facts.

Please find our questions intermingled with your statement of policy below.

> a) Register.com will continue to verify with its customers that they
> authorized the transfer requests.

Q. Has Register.com determined the form and substance of these
verifications?

> b) If a customer verifies a request, register.com will ACK the request.

Q. What does Register.com view as a valid "verified request"? During what
time period can gaining registrars expect to receive an ACK for verified
requests?

> c) If a customer objects or questions the request, register.com will NACK
> the request.

Q. In Register.com's opinion, what constitutes an objection? What
constitutes a question? During what time period can gaining registrars
expect to receive a NACK for objected or questioned transfers?

> d) If a customer does not respond, register.com will ACK the request if
> the requesting registrar has "transfer in" practices that reliably obtain
> express authorization from the registrant.

Q. What is the expiration period for non-response? What are the criteria by
which Register.com will judge the reliability of the gaining registrar's
transfer practices? Is there an appeals process? Has any thought been given
to process impartiality? To what degree will Register.com provide
competitive registrars access to registrant data for the purpose of
fulfilling this requirement? What is Register.com's definition of "express
authorization"?

> e) If the requesting registrar has unreliable practices of obtaining
> express authorization from the registrant, and the customer does not
> respond, register.com will NACK the request unless and until register.com
> receives assurances that the requesting registrar reforms its "transfer
> in" practices.  Register.com reserves the right to check such practices
> and ensure that appropriate authorization, as required by the ICANN
> agreements, has been obtained.

Q. Some of my questions regarding point d) above also apply to statement e)
as well. To those above I would add; What form should these assurances take
in order to satisfy Register.com's requirements? How is "unreliable"
defined? To what degree will Register.com defer to ICANN and/or the registry
in situations where its judgement conflicts with that of the relevant
authority?

Lastly, I presume that your references above regarding ICANN requirements
are erroneous and that you meant Verisign. I doubt that I have to point it
out, but for clarities sake, transfer policy is governed by the
Registry/Registrar agreements and not the ICANN Accreditation Agreement
(save the requirement to adhere to registry policy). How does your
organization propose to extend this policy to include transfers between
registrars for the new registries?

> We believe that this new policy would provide register.com and the
> registrar constituency with the flexibility and balance that we have all
> been seeking in resolving this issue.

This statement of policy does provide Tucows with reassurance that your firm
has the flexibility to revisit past decisions, these new statements do not
provide us with the clarity required to fully endorse your proposition.

> We recommend that the constituency schedule a conference call to discuss
> this solution.

The devil is always in the details. It is probably too early to discuss this
proposition until Register.com provides complete answers to the many points
of uncertainty raised by its new position. On the other hand, if the purpose
of the teleconference is to offer the constituency membership an opportunity
to provide Register.com with feedback concerning what we feel would be
appropriate answers to the questions that I pose above, I would be pleased
to participate at the earliest possible date.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration of these questions.

Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Innovation & Research
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492