RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

I was confused as well.

Bob - do you want the second unallowable condition to remain?  In other
words, a registrant could not NACK a transfer because they have not received
a response back from a registrant/admin contact unless they had a specific
agreement with the registrant to do so.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:43 AM
> To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrar Constituency'
> Cc: 'Chuck Gomes'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> 
> 
> > Dear Ross:  It was my intention to say that we would be 
> > disappointed if 
> > this provision was *not* included in the proposed procedures 
> > which would be 
> > disallowed.  We like this provision.  I believe you are 
> > saying the same 
> > thing.  Regards, BobC
> 
> Ahhh...okay...your response to Chuck's question confused me.
> 
> 
> 
>                        -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
> 
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> 
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:21 AM
> > To: Registrar Constituency
> > Cc: 'Chuck Gomes'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> > 
> > 
> > At 10:02 AM 9/23/02 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > >What I mean is that if you, as the gaining
> > >registrar, have received authorization from the 
> registrant, then the 
> > >lack of a response by the registrant to the losing registrar 
> > (who might 
> > >use an english only notice) should not be a reason for 
> > denial - which 
> > >is what the process that Chuck has put forward describes.
> > 
> > Dear Ross:  It was my intention to say that we would be 
> > disappointed if 
> > this provision was *not* included in the proposed procedures 
> > which would be 
> > disallowed.  We like this provision.  I believe you are 
> > saying the same 
> > thing.  Regards, BobC
> > 
> > 
> > 
>