RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

On tuesday at 10am EDT the constituency has a 2 hour call, I'd like to
dedicate the first hour to discussion for the Whois TF and use the last 45
minutes to disucss this transfers proposal.

-rick


On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Tim - I think you missed my point - which you use wonderfully as
> bootstrap support for an otherwise unrelated conclusion.
>
> First and foremost, I sought clarification from Bob as a member of the
> RC - I made this *extremely* clear in my message.
>
> Secondly, there is no reason that this constituency should be held
> hostage by the tyranny of the minority. Since day one, the constituency
> membership has supported a transfer process that doesn't allow a losing
> registrar to "game" the system because of linguistic or cultural
> differences.
>
> "IRDX processes MUST maintain minimum standards of consumer protection,
> while taking into account the legal, linguistic and cultural differences
> of the domain name registration market, registrars, and SLD Holders."
> - Registrar Constituency position paper, September 2001.
>
> This position has been confirmed numerous times over the last year since
> the principle was first introduced, but now you expect the constituency
> to change its mind because you've decided that you don't like it?
>
> Lastly, speaking as the RC TF rep - it is my job to seek compromise with
> other constituencies on the new policy recommendations - not to revisit
> the previously determined positions of the constituency. Last fall, we
> took a vote that indicated that one registrar disagreed with the
> constituency recommendations to the NC. This mandate and the ensuing
> clarifications have provided me with precisely what I require in order
> to arrive at a conclusion that suits the interests of those that
> provided me with the original mandate.
>
> If the constituency provides me with a new mandate, I will move forward
> in accordance with the new guidance. If members make additional
> suggestions that are consistent with the original position and enhance
> the work of the TF, I will move forward with that suggestion. If a
> member makes a demand that would require me to completely reverse the
> position that I have defended for the last 18 months, then this will
> simply not happen.
>
>
>
>                        -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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:44 AM
> > To: ross@tucows.com; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Chuck Gomes'
> > Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> >
> >
> > It's unfortunate and discouraging that after several attempts
> > to clarify our views on this matter that our TF Rep feels
> > that this "minority" view is just a matter of personal convenience.
> >
> > If our customers understood enough to come to our site,
> > register a domain, agree to the registration agreement, all
> > written in English, then it would certainly be a logical
> > assumption that they should be able to understand other
> > English instructions.
> >
> > But I won't argue this matter any further in this forum. It's
> > clear that the Transfers TF is intent on imposing policy
> > that, in my opinion, goes beyond business rules and begins to
> > attempt to control business models. Such policies are
> > contrary to the ICANN charge to encourage competition. Let's
> > hope ICANN sees this clearly. Unfortunately, as well intended
> > as Chuck may have been, the interim policy that he is
> > suggesting has the same flaws since it is based primarily on
> > the work of the Transfers TF.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:02 AM
> > To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Chuck Gomes'
> > Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> >
> >
> > 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.)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>