RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles

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

Tim,

It seems to me that if there is a dispute resolution process that there
needs to be a common language for all transfer processes.  Otherwise, it
would make it very difficult to review the steps of the process for steps
that were not in the commond language.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 12:05 PM
To: ross@tucows.com
Cc: rob@momentous.com; rconnell@psi-japan.com; registrars@dnso.org;
cgomes@verisign.com
Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles


Go Daddy's site is only in English. While I'd like to think it was so user
friendly that you could follow through on a registration or transfer
without reading it, I doubt that's true.

In any event, what if this principle required only the losing registrar to
send the communications at least in English. That's the real issue anyway
isn't it.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles
   From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
   Date: Fri, November 29, 2002 11:23 am
   To: "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>,
         "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>,
         "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>

   If the principle is to be reasonably consumer friendly (and therefore
   profitable) wouldn't it make more sense to allow the Registrant to
   choose the language of the communication in order to ensure that the
   Registrar in question actually obtained informed consent from the
   Registrant?

   -rwr

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: "Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>
   To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "Robert F. Connelly"
   <rconnell@psi-japan.com>; "Registrar Constituency"
   <registrars@dnso.org> Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
   Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 1:17 PM
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles


   > If the Authentication request is to be standardized, then Yes.
   >
   > In your scenario, if the Gaining is handling authentication, they
   > should send both.  English and whatever language they choose.
   >
   > Rob.
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
   > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
   > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:51 PM
   > To: Rob Hall; Robert F. Connelly; Registrar Constituency
   > Cc: Gomes, Chuck
   > Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles
   >
   >
   > "Remember, under these principals, it could be the losing Registrar
   > that
   is
   > handling the authentication of the request. "
   >
   > Also note that these principles don't preclude the Gaining Registrar
   > from handling the request. Should the Gaining Registrar be required
   > to send out
   a
   > bilingual notice in the event that the Registrants preference is for
   > a language other than English?
   >
   > I think I'm with Bob on this one.
   >
   > -rwr
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Rob Hall
   > To: Robert F. Connelly ; Registrar Constituency
   > Cc: Gomes, Chuck
   > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:37 PM
   > Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles
   >
   >
   > Bob,
   >
   > The point is not whether a losing registrar will be forced to send
   > it in Japanese.  The point is he Registrar MUST at least send it in
   > Engligh. EITHER Registrar can then send more information in a
   > different language. Remember, under these principals, it could be
   > the losing Registrar that is handling the authentication of the
   > request.  What I would not want to see happen is that the losing
   > Registrar is able to send the notice ONLY in whatever language they
   > want.  They should be free to send it IN ADDITION
   TO,
   > but not ONLY.
   >
   > What could be easily gamed, is that we could decide as the losing
   registrar
   > to only send the authentication in Latin.  While I should be able to
   > send
   it
   > in Latin, I should also have to send it in English.  Especially if I
   > am
   the
   > sole Registrar responsible for the Authentication.
   > Rob.
   >
   >
   >  -----Original Message-----
   > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
   Behalf
   > Of Robert F. Connelly
   > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:09 PM
   > To: Registrar Constituency
   > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Duane Connelly; Mieko Umezu
   > Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles
   >
   >
   > At 11:52 AM 11/29/02 -0500, Rob Hall wrote:
   >
   > Robert,
   >
   > To me, this clause reads that you must at least send the
   > notification in english.  However, you can also send it in any other
   > language you want, as well as sending instructions in any other
   > language you want.
   >
   > Dear Rob:  I don't see it that way.  English is mandatory.  I'd like
   > to
   see
   > a life sized picture of *you* sending a Japanese message to a
   > Japanese registrant who is trying to transfer *out_of* you as the
   > registraR;-(
   >
   > Read that "may", below, and see what you think are the chances that
   > a non Japanese registraR will send the alternate message in
   > Japanese?
   >
   > Regards, BobC
   >
   >
   >
   > Rob.
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
   > Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
   > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 11:10 AM
   > To: Registrar Constituency
   > Cc: Gomes, Chuck
   > Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles
   > Importance: High
   >
   >
   > At 05:14 PM 11/27/02 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
   > >8.                  English is the mandatory default language for
   > >all registrar, registry and registrant transfer communications.
   Additionally,
   > >registrars may communicate with registrants in other languages
   > >provided
   > that
   > >the principle of standardization in principle 5 above is satisfied.
   >
   > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   > Never underestimate the power of inertia;-}