<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
> Summary comment in the proposal: "Inter-registrar domain name
> transfers become transactions predicated on trust and an
> assumed lack of malfeasance on behalf of any party to the
> transaction."
>
> As a result, it should no more assume any registrar would
> "game" the system than that one would "slam" it. As a result
> losing registrars should not have their hands tied as a
> result of such assumption of malfeasance as implied below.
"should become" - as in "they are not now". Changed contracts are needed
to fix this. This means that the current contracts must change. The net
result of those changes is that "transfers become transactions
predicated on trust and an assumed lack of malfeasance on behalf of any
party to the transaction" but also that we cannot get there without
change.
-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 Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
>
>
> Summary comment in the proposal: "Inter-registrar domain name
> transfers become transactions predicated on trust and an
> assumed lack of malfeasance on behalf of any party to the
> transaction."
>
> As a result, it should no more assume any registrar would
> "game" the system than that one would "slam" it. As a result
> losing registrars should not have their hands tied as a
> result of such assumption of malfeasance as implied below.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:09 AM
> Cc: 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
>
>
> 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.)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|