RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal

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

Summary comment in the proposal: "Inter-registrar domain name transfers
become transactions predicated on trust and an assumed lack of malfeasance
on behalf of any party to the transaction."

As a result, it should no more assume any registrar would "game" the system
than that one would "slam" it. As a result losing registrars should not have
their hands tied as a result of such assumption of malfeasance as implied
below.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:09 AM
Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal


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.)
> >
> >
>
>