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

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

Rick,

I have submitted my ballot under separate cover, on behalf of the VeriSign
Registrar, to Mike Palage directly.  I believe that is the method of voting
that you used as well
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01284.html).

Regarding your mis-statements below, let me help with some facts.

On behalf of the VeriSign Registrar, I have attended every Registrar
Constituency meeting and teleconference, particularly since the ICANN
Stockholm meetings, where this topic was first discussed.  As clearly as
possible, I have elaborated at these meetings and teleconferences, the
VeriSign Registrars concerns with the current state of domain transfers
within our industry.   On behalf of the VeriSign Registrar, I have posted
our position to the Registrar Constituency mailing list, as well as posted
the suggested contract between registrars for handling transfers in an
automated, Auto ACK method.  VeriSign has also communicated with ICANN
management (copies at http://www.icann.org) regarding the issues with
transfers.  Whether every member of the constituency has chosen to listen to
or understand our position is a matter you'll have to decide for yourself.

Finally, the VeriSign Registrar continues to be committed to meeting every
requirement in our contracts with ICANN.  Should the process currently
underway in the Registrar Constituency ultimately modify those contracts,
you can be sure that we will meet those updated requirements as well.

Regards,

Bruce


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:48 PM
To:	Beckwith, Bruce
Cc:	'registrars@dnso.org'
Subject:	Re: [registrars] VeriSign Registrar Comments on Status of
Registrar Transfer Issue


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
>