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

["Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>]

Ross,

Thanks for your feedback.  This effort is not about proving someone wrong or
right, but rather ensuring that we manage the requests of our customers,
Internet consumers, in a fair and ethical manner.  This is not an esoteric
issue! 

I'd like to add some facts to this discussion.  This issue, as defined by
the registrars who are upset about the VeriSign Registrar's efforts to
protect consumers, began in June.  This was when the VeriSign Registrar
implemented a process for authenticating the validity of transfers.  The
VeriSign Registrar has made numerous efforts, both publicly and privately,
to elaborate the reasons for our process changes, as well as open
opportunities for other registrars interested in protecting consumers, by
putting forth a sample contract that allows two registrars to easily
transfer registrants between each other.  In the case of the VeriSign
Registrar, we have signed this contract with other registrars.  The process
works well.

I thank you for the suggestion of "amending ... the existing document" - we
are currently working on this and will post it shortly.  It will be a good
opportunity to see how well aligned some of the current proposal is with our
philosophy regarding consumers, as well as identifying clearly where we
believe the document could be enhanced.

I look forward to your comments on the revised draft we'll be posting.

Regards,

Bruce


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, October 02, 2001 2:17 PM
To:	registrars@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [registrars] VeriSign Registrar Comments on Status of
Registrar Transfer Issue

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