Re: [registrars] Transfer Ballot

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

Perhaps I should have been more explicit with my answer Larry. How does your
sister grant authorization to the gaining registrar if she is on vacation?
The answer is that the process makes it extremely unlikely your fictitious
example would occur. The registered name holder must provide authorization
for the transfer to occur. In order for things to get to the point that you
describe, someone with some level of authority related to the name had to
undertake the transfer. Gut feel doesn't count when it comes to denying
transfers. This is where the out-of-band resolution becomes necessary. Who
requested the transfer, who approved it etc...

I'm disappointed that you would vote to disapprove the process based on this
misunderstanding. This document has been in the wild for weeks now. Further
to that, it has been made painfully clear that it is open to amendment. If
you feel strongly that gut-feel mechanisms must be in place as you describe
below, then the most appropriate way to accomplish this is not to block the
document, but to work with it and improve it going forward.

You do imply that there are "other things" that are causing you to hold back
your approval. Could you elaborate on this further? If there are truly
serious flaws with this document, then the time to hear about them is now.

-rwr



Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Transfer Ballot


> IRDX
> >
> > [ ] APPROVE
> >
> > [X] DISAPPROVE
> >
> > ***     END BALLOT      ***
>
>
> Among other things, I feel that there should have
> been some "common sense" exception
> to deny a transfer, if used on a limited
> basis. I know that this had been discussed.
>
> I asked the following question
> of the drafters, and Mike Palage:
>
> "A review of the IRDX seems to indicate
> that a losing registrar couldn't deny a request
> based upon reasonable belief that the registrar's
> customer would not make such a request (and there
> is no time, or no way, to verify it with the
> current registrar). Example: My sister is on
> vacation and a request has been entered to
> transfer her name."
>
> And received the following response (from Ross):
>
> -- Both the gaining and losing registrar may both request authorization
from
> -- the registrant. If the gaining registrar requests a transfer, the
losing
> -- registrar must approve the transfer unless the registrant specifically
> -- objects based on the presumption that the gaining registrar has
acquired
> -- authorization. If the losing registrar wishes, he may request
confirmation
> -- of the authorization from the gaining registrar.
> --
> -- In a case like this, I would suggest that a phone call to the gaining
> -- registrar would be in order so that the unique case could be handled
> -- out-of-band.
>
> I don't see the above suggestion as a practical
> way to handle THIS situation. (Different time zones
> of registrars, and the need to deny a transfer
> in 5 days to name a few reasons. And I don't have
> "hotline" email addresses of MOST other registrars,
> only the same email address that anyone would
> have to write to. )
>
> Larry Erlich
>
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------