RE: [registrars] FYI: Revision 8 of TF recs.

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Using Registrar HOLD is not always appropriate in this situation. It's like
driving a tack with jackhammer. I appreciate your opinion about what the
appropriate tools are, but we'd rather be able to make that decision on our
own based on what's fair and correct for the situation.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:36 PM
To: 'Joyce Lin'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] FYI: Revision 8 of TF recs.


> What is the concern that a losing registrar can not deny a
> transfer because the domain name is not paid up?

The general precept being that the policy should try to anticipate
gaming where possible and try to take it into account.

The specific idea being that if a registrant truly hasn't paid (or if
there is any contention about the status of payment) that both RRP and
EPP have better facilities to that "facilitate" payment than N'ACKING a
transfer would. i.e. - [Registrar-Hold] is a more appropriate tool than
[N'ACK].



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joyce Lin [mailto:joyce@007names.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:58 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FYI: Revision 8 of TF recs.
>
>
> Ross,
>
> What is the concern that a losing registrar can not deny a
> transfer because the domain name is not paid up?
>
> Joyce
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:13 PM
> Subject: [registrars] FYI: Revision 8 of TF recs.
>
>
> > Please find a copy of the latest Transfers TF discussion
> doc attached.
> >
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> shore like an
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> >
> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original
> Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:12 PM
> > To: 'nc-transfer@dnso.org'
> > Subject: Revision 8 of TF recs.
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Please find attached the latest draft (revision 8) of the TF
> > recommendations.
> >
> > I have done a lot more tidying up this week and have merged
> the other
> > documents back into the base as per our discussion on the conference
> > call last week. I have also included a merged version of the
> > registry/registrar proposals that were floated last week. Jeff and I
> > haven't compared notes yet despite best intentions, but I
> believe that
> > we are close enough to intent at this point to "let loose
> the language".
> > There are still a few niggly bits left with Appendix A that
> Mark and Ram
> > will be picking up on this week - I would consider us
> extremely close at
> > this point.
> >
> > As always, drop me a note if there are any questions.
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> > (PS - My continuing apologies for the proprietary document format).
> >
> >
> > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> shore like an
> > idiot."
> > - Steven Wright
> >
> > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> >
> > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> >
> >
> >
> >
>