RE: [registrars] New Straw Poll

["Donny Simonton" <donny@intercosmos.com>]

Here is the ballot for Intercosmos Media Group dba directnic.com.

Thanks,
Donny Simonton
directnic.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:48 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] New Straw Poll
> Importance: High
>
>
> Listed below is the revised straw poll. I apologize for the delay
> but I have
> tried to run these questions by several people to make them as
> objective as
> possible. I have even included several questions that a registrar
> employing
> an autoNAC policy asked to be included. Thanks for those that responded to
> the original straw poll. As I previously stated in last week's
> teleconference, the next Names Counsel meeting is June 29th.
> There will be a
> seven day voting window on this ballot.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Q1: The current xfer policy in exhibit B of the
> registrar/registry contract
> is currently written from the perspective of what a gaining registrar must
> do. The policy is silent on what affirmative actions a losing
> registrar may
> take aside from requesting verification from the gaining
> registrar. Because
> the current policy does not prohibit a losing registrar from imposing
> additional safeguards in the transfer policy, a growing number of losing
> registrars are imposing safeguards that conflict with the policies and
> standard operating procedures that a majority of registrars have employed
> since the beginning of the test bed period. Given this difference of
> opinion, can be stated that there are ambiguities in the current xfer
> policy?
>
> [x]Yes
> [ ]No
>
> Q2: The registrars support a xfer policy that protects consumer's best
> interest?
>
> [ ]Yes
> [ ]No
We have to abstain on this one.  What a gaining registrar considers to be
the consumers best interest is not what the losing registrar considers to be
the consumers best interest.

>
> Q3: Registrars believe that the best way to protect a consumer's best
> interest when: (1) a gaining registrar has obtained authorization from an
> entity with legal authority to act on behalf of the registrant; and (2) a
> losing registrar sends an email notification to the registrant;
> and (3) the
> registrant fails to affirmatively respond to the losing
> registrar's inquiry
> is for the losing registrar to:
>
> [x]autoACK the transfer, except in special circumstances (i.e. rouge
> registrar, special instructions from a registrant, etc.)
> [ ]autoNAC the transfer
>
> Q4: Do the registrars favor a longer transfer period at the registry?
>
> [ ]Yes
> [x]No
>
> Q.5. Do the registrars favor a standard multi-lingual template that all
> losing registrars should send to a registrant when requesting verification
> on a transfer request?
>
> [ ] Yes
> [x] No
We already do this ourselves with invoices based on the few select languages
that that we have translated our site.  The only problem that we run into is
that you have so many variations in languages.  You have all of the
different variations of chinese and even french.  Who would translate the
template?  What if you want to make a change or something, would we need to
hire a traditional chinese translator, because you only have a simplified
chinese translator?

>
> Q.6. To date the following recommendations have been put forward on behalf
> of certain registrars as methods for minimizing the current xfer problem:
> (1) single notification by losing registrar in bulk transaction (greater
> than 5 domain names); (2) simultaneous email notification sent to gaining
> registrar; (3) uniform email template (multi-languages) sent by losing
> registrar; and (4) a longer time window at the registry to allow for
> transfers. If all of these recommendations were implemented would this in
> your opinion eliminate the majority of the current xfer problems that have
> been discussed to date and eliminate the need to change the current
> agreements?
>
> [ ] Yes - these proposals would eliminate the need for contractual change
> [x] No - these proposals do not go far enough, contractual change still
> needed
>
> Q.7: Since there are concerns on the part of requesting
> registrars that some
> losing registrars may not be allowing transfers to occur and
> concerns on the
> part of losing registrars that registrants are getting slammed or some
> requesting registrars are not getting the appropriate
> authorization from an
> authorized representative, should the registrar constituency explore an
> independent verification model?
>
> [ ] Yes
> [x] No
>
>
> Q.8 Because of the alleged ambiguities in the current registrar/registry
> contract and the lack of any governing contract with ICANN on
> this specific
> issue, a policy change in accordance with Section 4 of the
> registrar/registry contract is the only option to legally enforce any new
> xfer policy an all ICANN accredited registrars. Do the registrars support
> putting forth the xfer policy before the names counsel to begin the policy
> implementation guidelines as set forth in Section 4.
>
> [x] Yes
> [ ] No
>
>
>
>