RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

No objection here, I would note however that the constituency has
devoted considerable airtime to both issues over the last few calls and
certainly this past weekend.



                       -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: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:35 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> On tuesday at 10am EDT the constituency has a 2 hour call, 
> I'd like to dedicate the first hour to discussion for the 
> Whois TF and use the last 45 minutes to disucss this 
> transfers proposal.
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> > Tim - I think you missed my point - which you use wonderfully as 
> > bootstrap support for an otherwise unrelated conclusion.
> >
> > First and foremost, I sought clarification from Bob as a 
> member of the 
> > RC - I made this *extremely* clear in my message.
> >
> > Secondly, there is no reason that this constituency should be held 
> > hostage by the tyranny of the minority. Since day one, the 
> > constituency membership has supported a transfer process 
> that doesn't 
> > allow a losing registrar to "game" the system because of 
> linguistic or 
> > cultural differences.
> >
> > "IRDX processes MUST maintain minimum standards of consumer 
> > protection, while taking into account the legal, linguistic and 
> > cultural differences of the domain name registration market, 
> > registrars, and SLD Holders."
> > - Registrar Constituency position paper, September 2001.
> >
> > This position has been confirmed numerous times over the last year 
> > since the principle was first introduced, but now you expect the 
> > constituency to change its mind because you've decided that 
> you don't 
> > like it?
> >
> > Lastly, speaking as the RC TF rep - it is my job to seek compromise 
> > with other constituencies on the new policy recommendations 
> - not to 
> > revisit the previously determined positions of the 
> constituency. Last 
> > fall, we took a vote that indicated that one registrar 
> disagreed with 
> > the constituency recommendations to the NC. This mandate and the 
> > ensuing clarifications have provided me with precisely what 
> I require 
> > in order to arrive at a conclusion that suits the interests 
> of those 
> > that provided me with the original mandate.
> >
> > If the constituency provides me with a new mandate, I will move 
> > forward in accordance with the new guidance. If members make 
> > additional suggestions that are consistent with the 
> original position 
> > and enhance the work of the TF, I will move forward with that 
> > suggestion. If a member makes a demand that would require me to 
> > completely reverse the position that I have defended for 
> the last 18 
> > months, then this will simply not happen.
> >
> >
> >
> >                        -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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:44 AM
> > > To: ross@tucows.com; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Chuck Gomes'
> > > Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > It's unfortunate and discouraging that after several attempts
> > > to clarify our views on this matter that our TF Rep feels
> > > that this "minority" view is just a matter of personal 
> convenience.
> > >
> > > If our customers understood enough to come to our site,
> > > register a domain, agree to the registration agreement, all
> > > written in English, then it would certainly be a logical
> > > assumption that they should be able to understand other
> > > English instructions.
> > >
> > > But I won't argue this matter any further in this forum. It's
> > > clear that the Transfers TF is intent on imposing policy
> > > that, in my opinion, goes beyond business rules and begins to
> > > attempt to control business models. Such policies are
> > > contrary to the ICANN charge to encourage competition. Let's
> > > hope ICANN sees this clearly. Unfortunately, as well intended
> > > as Chuck may have been, the interim policy that he is
> > > suggesting has the same flaws since it is based primarily on
> > > the work of the Transfers TF.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:02 AM
> > > To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Chuck Gomes'
> > > Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand your statement Bob. It would strike
> > > me that a losing registrar that n'acks a transfer request
> > > because of the lack of response by the admin or registrant
> > > would work against you given the differences in languages.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Tucows would be disappointed if this reason was removed from
> > > the list of non-allowable reasons for the sake of convenience
> > > of a minority of registrars.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                        -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: Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:17 PM
> > > > To: Chuck Gomes
> > > > Cc: Registrar Constituency
> > > > Subject: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Chuck:  I'm sorry that this feature is at risk.  Due
> > > to language
> > > > problems, our greatest problem is from non English speakers
> > > who do not
> > > > understand the Email received from their registraR and do not
> > > > respond to
> > > > it.  This is the source of the vast majority of the nacks
> > > against our
> > > > requests for transfer of sponsorship.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, BobC
> > > >
> > > > o       No response from registrant/admin contact 
> unless the losing
> > > > registrar shows evidence of instructions from
> > > registrant/admin to do
> > > > so.  (Comment: early feedback indicates that the chances of
> > > achieving
> > > > the broadest and quickest acceptance of this proposal would be
> > > > significantly
> > > > increased if this bullet was deleted at this time; as
> > > > everyone understands
> > > > already, this is the biggest sticking point in the transfer
> > > > debate and the
> > > > one that will be the most difficult to resolve to the
> > > > satisfaction of most
> > > > parties; recognizing this and also recognizing that bilateral
> > > > agreements
> > > > approved only by registrars who are already operating 
> by most of the
> > > > conditions in this approval would not add much value to any
> > > > registrars, it
> > > > seems like it would be better to delete it now so that the
> > > > benefits of the
> > > > rest of the proposal could be realized quickly.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
>