Re: [registrars] VeriSign Registrar Comments on Status of Registrar Transfer Issue

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

Bruce,

You state that VRSN is in broad agreement with the content of the document,
but not the "omissions". In the six months that this has been an issue, VRSN
has not substantially contributed to the debate - despite repeated requests,
both official and otherwise to do so. If, as you suggest, VRSN is actually
interested in moving the issue forward, as opposed to fillibustering on the
esoterics of consensus and registrant rights, then please consider the
following.

Each and every party at the table have made a significant investment and
significant concessions in the interests of resolving of this issue, save
one. However, this inflection point bears tremendous opportunity for VRSN.
The market leader should be the thought leader. If VRSN is serious about
forward movement on this issue, please table an amending proposition to the
existing document, drop your current default n'ack position and
constructively work within the constituency to put this issue to rest to
everyone's satisfaction. That, Bruce, would constitute meaningful progress.

I fear however that you are making the subtle implication that VRSN will
only deal with this document (other than voting not to ratify it) if it is
pursued as a consensus policy within the ICANN framework? Can you please
clear this up for us?

While I'm at it, can you also please clarify to whom you refer to when you
state "...but because we, like many others, see it as incomplete."  Should
one assume that Namesecure, Registrars.com and the other Verisign owned
registrars also oppose this document? Or is there some vast silent majority
of registrars that somehow do not support this document?

I have to say that I would be truly disappointed if VRSN continues not to
involve themselves in the development of process in this issue and then
points to a lack of representative participation as being the reason why you
will not support the clarified processes.

Please prove me wrong.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 12:59 PM
Subject: [registrars] VeriSign Registrar Comments on Status of Registrar
Transfer Issue


> Dear Registrar Constituency Colleagues,
>
> We at the VeriSign Registrar are encouraged by the meaningful discussion
> within the Registrar Constituency regarding the issue of intra-registrar
> transfers.  It is apparent that there is a better understanding now of all
> of the issues, both large and small, that we as registrars face when
trying
> to address our customer requests for a transfer.
>
> The proposed agreement, which encompassed a very large effort by Elana and
> Ross, took significant strides towards having a Constituency-wide
document.
> As seen in registrars@dnso.org <mailto:registrars@dnso.org>  postings by
> Elana Broitman (9/20, 9/25), Larry Erlich (9/23), Bhavin Turakhia (9/23,
> 9/26), David Wascher (9/24, 9/25), among others, there are major
outstanding
> issues that need to be addressed before we could say that the Registrar
> Constituency has completely addressed this question.  In addition, as we
> have stated in the past, this document should also address the thorny
issues
> of setting clear definitions for many aspects of registrar transfers.  For
> example, we need to clearly define apparent authority, as well as how a
> third party could validate transfers.  There is also not sufficient
> discussion in the document on the registrar/registrant contract, and
> how/whether an ISP/reseller can act as an agent on behalf of the
registrant,
> since they are not a party to the registrar/registrant contract (a facet
of
> the apparent authority definition that is needed).
>
> Finally, it is very important that we understand that non-registrars need
to
> participate in the policy-formation process for the result to have
> credibility.  Most importantly, we need to consult with registrants (i.e.,
> consumers), who are the very important other half of this equation.
>
> The VeriSign Registrar will vote to disapprove the current version of the
> document, not because we object to its content, but because we, like many
> others, see it as incomplete.  Approving a well-meaning but partially
> completed framework, as if it were complete, does not help us move the
ball
> forward.  We believe that the Internet Community, consumers, and
Registrars
> themselves, would be best served by having a complete transfer document
> agreed-upon, rather than a first-attempt, with major gaps in it.  As we,
the
> Registrar Constituency, have shown with our track record on the
> registry/registrar service level agreement (we put the first document
> together and never updated it as we promised we would), we hope that the
> Constituency will enhance the transfer document with these additional
points
> and include other interests in the dialogue to have a complete document
that
> we can all agree on.  We would appreciate the opportunity to have input to
> the revisions with this next iteration of the transfer position document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bruce Beckwith
> VeriSign Registrar