Re: [registrars] New Straw Poll

[dwascher@iaregistry.com]

 

David Wascher
Manager IARegistry

 

> > 
>   -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> > Sent: 
>   Monday, June 18, 2001 8:48 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?
> > 
> > 
>   [x]Yes
> > [ ]No
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
>   
> > [X] Yes
> > [] No
>
> Losing registrar may add additional 
>   language.
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> > [X] Yes
> > [] 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
> > 
> > 
> >