RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
> 1. Since gaining Registrar has obtained and retained proof of transfer
> request, should the losing Registrar should only NAC the request if
> explicitly requested by the Registrant. Yes__ No__
The losing registrar should not NACK the request if there
is no answer from the registrant.
A "no answer" from the supposed email address of the admin
contact should be an ACK back to the registry
> 2. Should a standardized transfer authorization template be
> required by all
> Registrars to verify a transfer request? Yes__ No__
No. The losing registrar should be able to communicate
however and whenever they like with their customers.
There should be no restrictions on that.
This will help increase competition, which is good
for the registrant and the Internet.
They don't need to even send a
verification request to the registrant, or they can put
advertisements in it. But a "no answer" to whatever
message they send or don't send, must be an ACK back to the registry.
> 3. Should Registrars accept notarized hard copy transfer
> requests as proof
> of authorization? Yes__ No__
In some countries it is difficult to get things notarized.
Transfers are the basis for competition, therefore
if we make the process too onerous or expensive, competition will be hurt.
It is up to the gaining registrar to get the proof of authorization
in whatever form. If there is a requirement on the exact form
of the authorization, so for exmaple, the gaining registrar needs to get
an actually paper in regular mail,
signed in blood by the registrant, with a DNA test,
then the losing registrar needs to get the same thing in
order to NACK it.
If the gaining registrar went to all the trouble to get a
signed fax from the registrant (as eNom does), then
the losing registrar cannot just trash all that work
by NACKing the request to the registry when they didn't
get an answer back from the email address they thought
was the registrant's.
> 4. Is the reconfirmation / autoNAKing process that a select
> few Registrars
> currently enforce (i.e. requiring a Registrant to acknowledge
> a Registrar
> transfer request for a second time) an acceptable and fair
> practice for the
> Internet community in general? Yes__ No__
Many registrars make updating the registrant's whois
information difficult, thus making it difficult for
the registrant to switch, and thus providing no incentive for
the registrar to improve the whois info update
process or to keep accurate whois.
If the losing registrar knows that a "no answer" = ACK,
then there is no incentive for that registrar to
succesfully contact the registrant. If a
"no answer" = NACK, then the registrar has an incentive
to successfully contact the registrant,
(accurate and up-to-date whois info will help greatly, therefore
there is an incentive for the registrar to maintain accurate
and up-to-date info), and entice the
registrant to stay with better service and/or price
(or provide this in the first place), which
is all good for the Internet community.