RE: [registrars] Outstanding issues on Registrar Transfers

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

thanks to elana and ross for the exhaustive collection of points ...... my
two bits on the ourstanding and other issues -

* Firstly pardon me if this is already in the agenda but Id like to state it
all the same that the entire process we will agree upon must be binding on
all registrars and theonly way to do that is to get it in the ICANN
Agreement. I hope that is the idea for this process, since if it isnot
legally binding it will not be followed effectively

> RECOMMEND: "apparent authority, as defined by the Losing Registrar's
> practices"

Larry has written some nice points about this one, however I need to bring
up a single observation of why this is not possible. A Gaining registrar
transfers domain names from multiple entities. ie I as a registrar transfer
names from TUCOWS, Network Solutiosn and several other registrars. Lets
assume that TUCOWS believes that the Registrant should be the autoritative
contact while netsol believes it should be administrative and regisrant.
Therefore I will have to use a different process of parsing the whois record
and contact info for each registrar i trf a domain from. Additionally I will
have to separately keep track of each losing registrars different
preferences on who is the autoratitative contact according to them and
maintain different type of records for each of them and different processes
of authorisation. This wil be cumbersome for customers and registrars and it
goes against the principle of making the trf smooth. It is neceesary to have
consistency in who can be binding authority on a particulr trfer,

Instead of the losing or gaining registrar suggesting this we could have it
in the ICANN agreement itself that express approval from Admin, and
registrant for instance will be binding. This presents following
advantages -

1. it removes the issue mentioned above by elaina, cuz now all regsitrars
have to bindingly ensure that the registrant and admin contact are
authoritative contacts

2. most importantly it passes a consistent message to the customer. I cant
picture a customer who is with one registrar and in the first transfer
realises that the admin cotnact had the authority but since now his
registrar is changed the second time he again wants to trf his domain it is
the technicl contact this time that is authoritative. this will confuse the
customer if we allow each losing registrar to follow theirown practice on
who is the authoritative contact to bind a transfer request. instead a
common unified message would be better.

3. it would make the trf process consistent for all gaining registrars

> RECOMMEND: Include process for transfers going through indirect channels,
> and require such processes to be authorized using the same
> documentation as
> the direct channel + evidence of a contract between the indirect
> partner and
> the registrar that obligates the indirect partner to adhere to the same
> minimum standards.

a slightly difficult proposition considering the proof of authorisaitonw
ould be maintained by partners and then if requested bylosing registrar must
be procured from the parneinays and furnished to the losing registrar. and
if a single partner fails to keep up the standards the gaining registrar
would be potentially blacklisted.

> RECOMMEND:  In cases of erroneous or unauthorized transfers, Gaining
> Registrar transfers domain name back to Losing Registrar and indemnifies
> such registrar against any potential liability.

wonder how this will work with the current verisign policy of adding one
year during each trfer - i am sure a customer does not want to be bounced
around continuously and pay for extra years each time.

> RECOMMEND: We must consider and institute the appropriate benchmarks for
> "locks."

not just locks during the tenure of the doamin but also locks during the 45
day auto-renew period. Surprisngly I have seen no mention of this in the
docs anywhere - but netsol i believe currently has the policy where you
cannot trf a domain away from them during the 45 day auto-renew period since
it is in a REGISTRAR-HOLD. The funny part is their Registrar reference
manual that they provide as a Registry clearly states that the losing
registrar would be refunded the $6 if the domain was trferred during the
auto-renew period.

one more aspect I believe hasnot been covered is the liability of a
registrar blacklisting another one for no reason. for instance lets say a
losing registrar blacklisted a particular gaining one claiming that they
have not followed appropriate practices, however assuming the agining
registrar had complied with all formalities. Which legal binding would take
care that an issue such as this would be handled since there is no legal
agreement between the registrars?