RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles

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

While I can see that having a required common language may help facilitate
dispute resolution (although I can go either way on that also), I don't
believe "requiring" any other language is practical and will add a level of
complexity that will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Leaving it
as an option to registrars does not force any particular business model, it
leaves it up to them and how they wish to best serve their customers.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@schlund.de]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:57 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Thomas Keller; Ross Wm. Rader; registrars@dnso.org; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles


Tim,

please see my remarks below:

Am 02.12.2002 schrieb Tim Ruiz:
> >But for the sake of the Registrant in regards of process
> >transparency and consumer friendliness the authenticating
> >Registrar should have the obligation to include Registrants
> >local language, in a standardized way, within these messages
> >in addition to english.
>
> So, should the registrar's registration agreement also be required to
> present itself in the user's local language in order to be binding?
>
> If I choose to go to a German language site, agree to a German language
> registration agreement, I should expect to receive German communications.
>
> If the language of my site is clearly English, with no other translations,
> why should you expect to receive communications in German or Japanese from
> me?

I would agree to that one hundered percent if all Registrars would work
that way but in our business we have a multitude of different business
models and some not to say the most use reseller structures in some
way or the another. This leads to the problem that not all resellers
of english speaking Registrars only target the english speaking market
but trying to conduct business in other countries with sites in other
languages. To there customers (who will have to agree to a translated
version
of the registration agreement which includes the orignal english version
as mandatory document) it is by no means clear and transparent that there
will be other language involved but there own if it comes down to deal
with the Registrar itself. Due to the fact the Registrar has no way, nor
does he want to, of controlling who his businesspartner conduct business
with there have to be some saveguards to protect registrant and his
freedom of choice.

>
> The requirement you describe forces a certain business model on registrars
> and adds a layer of unnecessary complexity.
>

Well, in the other way around it does the same thing to all the
non english Registrars who have to explain there custumers how to
answer your english authentication request.

It doesn't add complexity, the world is already complex enough ;).

tom

> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:55 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org; Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Schlund is supporting these priniciples in general.
>
> As to the following principal:
>
> 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.
>
> we just want to add that one default language used in all
> standardized messages regarding Interregistrar Registrar
> Registrant communication might have some benefits especially
> on the Registrar level (The Registrar should be able to
> understand the message without consulting a translator).
> But for the sake of the Registrant in regards of process
> transparency and consumer friendliness the authenticating
> Registrar should have the obligation to include Registrants
> local language, in a standardized way, within these messages
> in addition to english.
>
> How these standardized messages could look like and how
> the Registrants local language is determined should be
> subject to further discussion.
>
> Best,
>
> tom
>
> --
>
> Thomas Keller
>
> Domain Services
> Schlund + Partner AG
> Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12                                    Tel.
> +49-721-91374-534
> 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany                                 Fax
> +49-721-91374-215
> http://www.schlund.de                                    tom@schlund.de
>
> Am 27.11.2002 schrieb Ross Wm. Rader:
> > Sent at the request of Chuck Gomes of Verisign.
> >
> > Chuck has been cc'ed on this message, so if you "Reply to All" with any
> > questions, the list will allow him to respond publicly.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> > To: <ross@tucows.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:39 PM
> > Subject: Principles
> >
> > In discussions with several registrars over the last few months, I have
> come
> > to the conclusion that there appears to be good support for the
following
> > principles with regard to the registrar transfer process.  I have
> requested
> > that these principles be posted to the Registrars Constituency list to
> > encourage discussion on that list.  Hopefully, agreement on basic
transfer
> > principles by registrars will provide a foundation that can be used in
> > conjunction with the work of the DNSO Transfers Task Force to develop
> > revised transfer policies and procedures that will alleviate some of the
> > problems with the current process.  The principles came from a variety
of
> > sources including some from the work of the DNSO Transfers Task Force.
> It
> > should be noted that this list is by no means complete, rather it is a
> list
> > of principles for which I believe there is already strong support.  I
> would
> > hope that additional principles would be added in coming weeks including
> > additional ones from the Task Force report.
> >
> > It would be helpful to find out how many registrars support all 17 of
the
> > principles at least at a high level, understanding that considerable
> > detailed work would need to be done to implement the principles.  It
would
> > also be helpful to find out if there are any registrars who oppose any
of
> > the principles and if so, why?  Please post your comments to the
> Registrars
> > List.
> >
> > 1.                  Registrars should provide a unique and private email
> > address for use only by other registrars and the registry.
> > 2.                  Admin contact is the default authority.
> > 3.                  Registrant may overrule admin contact authority.
> > 4.                  All transfer process communications to registrants
> from
> > losing and gaining registrars should be standardized.
> > 5.                  Registrars should provide special, standardized
Whois
> > access, which may be separate from public Whois access, to other
> registrars
> > and the registry solely for the purpose of transacting transfers.
> > 6.                  If the gaining registrar is responsible for transfer
> > authentication and the losing registrar's special Whois is not
accessible
> > for a to-be-specified time; this can be grounds to allow the transfer to
> > occur in case of a dispute.
> > 7.                  Minimum, standardized documentation should be
required
> > of registrars for all transfer procedure steps for use in dispute
> > resolution.
> > 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.
> > 9.                  Only registrars may initiate disputes.  If
registrants
> > want to initiate a dispute, it must be done through a registrar.
> > 10.              The registry is responsible for first level dispute
> > resolution.
> > 11.              There will be a non-judicial second-level dispute
> > resolution process for appeals.
> > 12.              Losing and gaining registrars should be required to
> > complete specific transfer process steps within to-be-determined and
> > specifically defined time periods.
> > 13.              Only losing or gaining registrar should authenticate
the
> > transfer request, not both.
> > 14.              If some form of auth code is used, the same auth code
> must
> > be used for the same domain name and the same gaining registrar.
> > 15.              If a new transfer process is adopted, the new process
> > replaces the old process (i.e., a registrar can't use the new process
and
> > the old process as a follow up to restrict a transfer).
> > 16.              Reasons for a losing registrar to deny a transfer:
> > ·        Evidence of fraud
> > ·        UDRP action
> > ·        Court order
> > ·        Non-payment for previous registration period if transfer is
> > requested after the expiration date or non-payment for the current
> > registration period if transfer is requested before the expiration date.
> >
>
> gruss
>
> tom
>        O /
>       /|    o
>       / \  \|/
>     wenn ein kind eine blume pflueckt ist das schoen.
>  wenn alle kinder eine blume pfluecken ist die wiese leer.
>
>
>

gruss

tom
       O /
      /|    o
      / \  \|/
    wenn ein kind eine blume pflueckt ist das schoen.
 wenn alle kinder eine blume pfluecken ist die wiese leer.