RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal

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

I'm not sure I understand your statement Bob. It would strike me that a
losing registrar that n'acks a transfer request because of the lack of
response by the admin or registrant would work against you given the
differences in languages. What I mean is that if you, as the gaining
registrar, have received authorization from the registrant, then the
lack of a response by the registrant to the losing registrar (who might
use an english only notice) should not be a reason for denial - which is
what the process that Chuck has put forward describes. 

Tucows would be disappointed if this reason was removed from the list of
non-allowable reasons for the sake of convenience of a minority of
registrars. 



                       -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: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:17 PM
> To: Chuck Gomes
> Cc: Registrar Constituency
> Subject: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> 
> 
> Dear Chuck:  I'm sorry that this feature is at risk.  Due to language 
> problems, our greatest problem is from non English speakers 
> who do not 
> understand the Email received from their registraR and do not 
> respond to 
> it.  This is the source of the vast majority of the nacks against our 
> requests for transfer of sponsorship.
> 
> Regards, BobC
> 
> o       No response from registrant/admin contact unless the losing 
> registrar shows evidence of instructions from registrant/admin to do 
> so.  (Comment: early feedback indicates that the chances of 
> achieving the 
> broadest and quickest acceptance of this proposal would be 
> significantly 
> increased if this bullet was deleted at this time; as 
> everyone understands 
> already, this is the biggest sticking point in the transfer 
> debate and the 
> one that will be the most difficult to resolve to the 
> satisfaction of most 
> parties; recognizing this and also recognizing that bilateral 
> agreements 
> approved only by registrars who are already operating by most of the 
> conditions in this approval would not add much value to any 
> registrars, it 
> seems like it would be better to delete it now so that the 
> benefits of the 
> rest of the proposal could be realized quickly.)
> 
>