Re: [registrars] Re: FW: rejected domain (pailing.net)

["Nezih Erkman" <nezih@erkman.com>]

IMHO, there is no need to invent new procedures.
The current system would work just fine, if EVERY registrar obey the rules
(instead of bending them according to their business model).
And it's ICANN's job to take the bad apples out of the box.

The rules are simple:
1- Gaining registrar gets the approval from the domain owner.
2- Losing registrar approves the transfer.

How hard this can be? Apparently not as easy as it looks. It's sad to see
that we all have capital, hardware, software engineers,etc., but can't run
this simple procedure. I guess there is one more ingredient that is needed
to run a smooth operation: "Ethical business practices" (which is missing on
only a few number of registrars yet enough to ruin the whole system)

Best Regards,

Nezih Jack Erkman
R & K GBS, Inc.
000Domains.com
Cell: 501-779-1934
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick" <dnso-reg@gandi.net>
To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Re: FW: rejected domain (pailing.net)


> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:09:27PM +0530, Bhavin Turakhia took time to
write:
> > > This reminds me of an idea I had about transfers, which I never
> > > shared nor develop. Maybe it is silly, but anyway here it is:
> > <snip>
> >
> > interesting idea ...... my question - which organisation would do this??
and
> > for what kind of remuneration (considering most registrars have
attractive
> > transfer packages making just a couple of cents)??
>
> Two possibilities I see right now:
> - in the long term/in theory : chosing/acreditating organizations
> should be ICANN role, as it is to choose organizations to handle UDRP
> cases,
> - in the court term/in practice : what sounds reasonable is to try
> ourselves to build things. I am not sure if contract-wise it would be
> ok, but maybe Registrars together (the ones who whould like to make
> transfers not a burden on their customer and improve the current
> state) could decide, and then all abide by those rules (that is that
> they will each and all remove their own verifications to take only
> into account what the ``Transfer Verification Organization'' says).
> That is, some Registrars (of course, all would be great, but previous
> threads that all/consensus/majority are difficult terms here ;-)) could
> form a group, decide that transfers among members of this group will
> be handled by a TVO (a neutral party to all of them), and
> choose/create/build/whatever such a TVO.
> It would be better to have from the beginning and from scratch a
> totally independant organization. But this hard to achieve, time and
> money consuming. Maybe it can start as a part of a given Registrar
> willing to help. Of course, after agreement from all Registrars
> participating. Some kind of rules (how the system should work, what
> verification is done exactly) would need to be agreed upon all
> Registrars participating.
>
> For example, for transparency, at any time, any transfer among
> registrar A and B should list of details (mails sent, mails
> received, etc...) avaible through a website (protected area of
> course), for both A and B.
>
> The remuneration is of course a very valid/important point. No
> bright idea right now. If we take the last point (group of Registrars
> deciding to operate like that), each Registrar could participate in
> funding. Either same amount for each, or proportionnal to the number
> of transfert. Same amount would be simpler.
>
> To run such an organization would not be too complicated/expensive.
> After the system is designed (for example to use emails), an effort
> has to be done to create it, that is true, but after that most of
> things should be automated. Few humans would be needed for abuse
> requests and such, but not too many of them I think.
> I think that the burden on Registrars would not be too high. Since
> the expense will not scale as the number of Registrars/transfers,
> (at least certainly not linearly if the system is well built),
> more Registrars using the system, means less to pay for each ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Patrick Mevzek
> Gandi.
>