RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Tim,

The extent that my proposal is similar to the Transfer TF document is not
because I took anything from what they are doing.  I have actually tried to
work totally independent of that activity.

Chuck

> -----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.)
> >
> >
>