[registrars] Fw: Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

here is some additional input from the gtld constituancy on the "transfer
issue"

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tindal, Richard" <richard.tindal@neulevel.biz>
To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers


> Thanks Ken.  This is a very useful paper and a clear statement of the
> current problem.
>
> Further to my question at the NC meeting.    On page three the paper
points
> out the several reasons why a Registrant would fail to respond to an email
> from the losing Registrar despite having agreed to the transfer with the
> gaining Registrar.   I was surprised that the paper did not provide the
> instance (I believe this happens very frequently) where a reseller (a web
> hoster or ISP) is the entity with whom the Registrant has a direct
> relationship.
>
> In this instance I think the Registrant doesn't really understand the
whole
> Registry/Registrar/Reseller model.  They simply have a relationship with
> their new hoster for web services and if this hoster asks them to
"transfer"
> the domain name in conjunction with the new hosting arrangement the
typical
> answer is "yes".   Having said this, I am not surprised to hear that when
> asked the question "Did you authorize a transfer of your domain name from
> Registrar X to Registrar Y?" this customer is saying "no".  They have
> probably not heard of either Registrar company (as these companies have
> tended to be invisible service providers to hosters.
>
> If this same customer was asked "Did you authorize a transfer of your
> website from Hoster C to Hoster D?" the answer is more likely to be "yes".
> I think that the hosting industry has reasonable mechanisms in place to
stop
> hosting slamming.  It looks to me that the domain industry is now going to
> mess with this by introducing a domain dimension to their existing model.
> I would be very interested to find out the proportion of the NSI survey
that
> were direct, retail domain customers as opposed to te customers of
> resellers.
>
> Just some initial thoughts.  I understand that this is a complex issue and
> that certain Registrars, who currently have a large outflow of transfers,
> have a strong interest in inhibiting domain portability.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@DIGITEL.NET]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 7:13 AM
> To: GTLD-PLANNING@MUSEDOMA.ORG
> Subject: Fw: Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers
>
> FYI...
>
> i thought that the gtld constituancy would be particularly interested in
> this issue
>
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>; "M. STUART LYNN" <lynn@icann.org>;
> "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>; "Roger J. Cochetti" <rogerc@netsol.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:18 AM
> Subject: Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers
>
>
> > Dear Ken:
> >
> > Attached please find the Registrar Constituency Statement regarding
domain
> > name transfers. I have been advised that the DNSO Names Counsil has set
> > aside some time in its agenda for this topic. At this time the Registrar
> > Constituency would just like to submit this letter which it believes
more
> > accurately addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the Registrar
> > Constituency. The Registrar Constituency is actively engaged in
resolving
> > this issue internally. However, if it cannot be resolve in the next
couple
> > of weeks, the Registrar Constituency will be submitting proposed
solutions
> > to the Names Counsil in Montevideo.
> >
> > Please note that Register.com, NSI Registrar and NameSecure expressed
> stated
> > their non-support of this letter.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael D. Palage
> >
> > Registrar Constituency Chairperson
> >
>