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

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Bruce,

I expect to see your ballot stating your vote, not just a not expressing
your position.

I am disappointed that you did not participate until now, I hope all take
note that participation is paramount in finding procedure that work for
all. I hope that this important decision reminds VeriSign just how
important it is for them to participate in this constituency and that each
registrar's input is considered, with participation your position cannot
be herd or understood.

It is my hope that VeriSign will not try to block the wishes of the
majority of the constituency, however the vote comes out.

regards,

-rick

On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Beckwith, Bruce wrote:

> 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
>