RE: [registrars] Transfers from up the reseller tree

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Thanks Ross for this quick clarification.

I think this would be a positive change and provide for greater certainty
wrt Registrar business operations. Please keep the constituency updated as
usual on the work of the implementation committee.

Best regards,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:15 PM
> To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Transfers from up the reseller tree
>
>
> Not sure I understand the example Bob, but let me take a crack at it.
>
> Current Situation:
> The losing registrar (and therefore *all* of its downstream
> relationships) can reject a transfer for any reason whatsoever.
>
> Transfer TF Proposal:
> The losing registrar (and therefore *all* of its downstream
> relationships) can only reject a transfer for very specific reasons.
>
> Under the TF proposal, if the losing registrar isn't holding up its end
> of the deal, the gaining registrar (in this case, you) would be able to
> force settlement of the issue through a third party dispute resolution
> process.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>
>
>                        -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: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:58 AM
> > To: Registrar Constituency
> > Subject: [registrars] Transfers from up the reseller tree
> >
> >
> > Dear Colleagues:
> >
> > We have an interesting problem for a rejected transfer.
> >
> > In this case, the RegistraR approved the transfer.  However
> > one of its
> > resellers nacked it because one of the reseller's resellers
> > asked that it
> > be nacked because one that ...
> >
> > Whoa, let me write that again, identifying primary,
> > secondary, tertiary
> > resellers:
> >
> > In this case, the RegistraR did not act.  The RegistraR's
> > primary reseller
> > was  mute on the request. The RegistraR's secondary reseller
> > asked the
> > RegistraR's tertiary reseller if it should be approved.  Said
> > tertiary
> > reseller would not approve the transfer so the secondary
> > reseller  nacked it.
> >
> > How will our TF's "Grand Plan" address this kind of case?
> >
> > Oh, by the way, PSI-Japan had seven pages of documents supporting the
> > transfer.  When I requeued the request, the actual registrant
> > wrote to ask
> > what was going on, he had long since asked for the transfer
> > and wondered
> > why it had not been completed.
> >
> > Regards, BobC
> >
> >
>