RE: [registrars] Transfers Task Force Update

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

sorry for delayed response..... still recovering from indefinite jetlag ...
:)

> 1. Apparent Authority.

I had already supplied my feedback on it. I believe Elaina had also
commented on my mail.

***************** MY MAIL *****************
<snip>
if gaining registrars define what they think apparent authority is then
losing registrars will feel uncomfortable and vice versa.

instead if we all agree that ONLY admin contacts and registrants are binding
authority (an example) and if icann mandates an authorisation from any of
these two, then autmatically a comfort level is achieved by all.
additionally it helps spread a unified message to all customers that the
admin contact and registrant have apparent authority to transfer a domain
and therefore they should be careful with what they put in those fields.

We cannot afford to have apparent authority defined vaguely since this not
only would cause discomfort amongst all registrars and break the concept of
this document, but additionally confuse customers who would while trefrring
domains to one registrar would have the admin contact approve it while in
case of another would require all the contacts to approve or some such
thing.

If on the other hand we have a closed apparent authority definition which
all registrars are amenable to then it would resolve this issue.
***************** MY MAIL *****************

************** ELAINA's Comments ****************
I think that Bhavin makes a very good point about defining a list of
apparent authority personnel.  The current ICANN and registry contracts and
concensus policies DO NOT define "apparent authority" - that's the whole
problem.

We can limit it to registrant and administrative contact, and still allow
for indirect apparent authority per Louis' clairification, as described by
Mike: "If there was a contractual provision in the ISP subscription
agreement
appointing the ISP as an agent/attorney-in-fact for registrar sponsorship,
this would be acceptable as apparent authority. Simple contractual language
absent this agent/attorney-in-fact language would not be sufficient to
convey apparent authority to an ISP. Notwithstanding, the gaining registrar
would still have to provide existence of this documentation to the losing
registrar if requested."

Mike - since your resolution states that the transfers document can be
amended at any time, why don't we propose this as an amendment to the
document for a separate vote?
************** ELAINA's Comments ****************