Re: [registrars] Verisign sends letter to ICANN - Transfer issues

["Werner Staub (CORE Secretariat)" <secretariat@corenic.org>]

Michael,

From a practical standpoint, the number of issues with the Verisign 
letter is so large that it is almost impossible to write a single
"consensus letter" that would do justice to them. This is not to say
that your effort to draft such a letter is not worthwhile and we 
appreciate it.

However, we have a situation where one registrar writes a letter
to ICANN and gets it published on their web site. Why would ICANN
not publish a response from each of the other registrars who
writes one, in addition to a consensus statement by the registrars
constituency?

Well, maybe there is a reason to give special treatment to Verisign-
registrar: the very registrar who wants written bilateral contracts 
and notarised transfer requests happens to be the registry that 
designed and administers a flawed registrar transfer framework. 

The flaws in Verisign-registry's transfer framework make transfers 
costly, which is precisely in the interest of that Verisign-registrar. 
The registry's conflict of interest must clearly be stated in our 
responses to ICANN.

Regards,

Werner



"Michael D. Palage" a *crit :
> 
> Paul:
> 
> I just posted a similar comment :-).
> 
> I believe that the Constituency needs to respond, I am working on a draft
> letter that I will post within the next 24 hours.
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Paul M. Kane
> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 1:01 PM
> > To: Registrars List
> > Subject: [registrars] Verisign sends letter to ICANN - Transfer issues
> >
> >
> > I see Verisign has written to ICANN on the transfer issue  ...
> > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm
> >
> > Can we have some comments/thoughts please.....
> >
> > BEst
> >
> > Paul
> >