[registrars] Document B - XFER Issue

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Here was the final document produced by Ross Rader and some comments that
she provided to the Executive Committee when submitting the document.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:13 PM
To: Elana Broitman; rick@ar.com
Cc: rc-excom@ar.com
Subject: Tucows Final Draft


Elana/Rick,

Please find attached Tucows last response to the proposal. Due to the
pending deadline, the detailed nature of the outstanding points and my
operational committments on other matters, this must necessarily be our last
contribution to the drafting effort. While I do not feel that this proposal
is necessarily exhaustive, I do feel that all involved have made an
excellent contribution and must necessarily be commended.

To the revisions enclosed, please consider them in conjunction with the
following comments;

1) Notary requirements: This requirement was not seen as being consistent
with the basic principles that the original drafts were created under. A
requirement for notarization undermines the principle elements of trust,
simplicity and universality that we have been striving to achieve.

2) Losing Registrar Redress: This is a subject that causes me great concern.
Accordingly, I have included significant revision to this draft that take
these exceptions into account. Neither the Losing Registrar, nor the Gaining
Registrar, must be afforded the opportunity to continue to game the system
as they have under the current contracts. Alternatively, both the Losing and
Gaining Registrar require additional clarity and protection over what the
current contracts provide. The initial proposals dealt with this by ensuring
that the process itself provided this additional protection. This supported
by an assumption of trust and innocence throughout the proposals.
Unfortunately, the evolution of the Losing Registrar Redress portion has not
preserved those principles. The modifications that I have made have been
solely to move the document back to a point where it fully and consistently
supports the goals as initially envisioned and endorsed by the RC.

Elana; As I mentioned on the phone, I have yet been unable to address some
of the specific revisions that you made at this point. Where there were no
problems, they were simply accepted into the draft. I believe that the notes
above appropriately summarize the extent of the changes that I have made
pursuant to your comments. I don't believe that I will have further
comments, but if I do, I will forward them to the ExComm or the RC as
appropriate. As I imagine that you likely have additional concerns given the
above mentioned changes, please consult directly with the RC ExComm or the
RC.

ExComm - If there are no further changes required, I imagine that this can
be forwarded as the unanimous recommendation of the drafting committee. If
not, this should be noted when the document(s) are forwarded to the RC by
MP.

Thanks again,

-rwr

rc-irdx-091801-v1r0d7.doc