RE: [registrars] Call for registrars to participate in an implementation analysis for TRANSFERS
Perhaps that the very reason to have them involved.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:59 AM
To: Registrar Constituency
Cc: Chuck Gomes; Duane Connelly; Mieko Umezu; Dan Busarow
Subject: RE: [registrars] Call for registrars to participate in an
implementation analysis for TRANSFERS
At 03:51 PM 12/16/02 -0500, Elana Broitman wrote:
>Bruce - I would like to volunteer for this implementation task force. As
>you know, Register.com has been very involved in transfer issues. I had
>worked with Ross last fall to draft a set of transfers recommendations,
>which make up a majority of the Transfers Report. I have also worked
>substantially on the more recent transfers principles. These days,
>Register.com has seen the potential compromise that protects consumers and
>makes transfers easier.
PSI-Japan *strongly* objects to having Register.com participate in the
implementation task force. Register.com has been one of the most
objectionable in their handling of transfers.
By contrast, we have had relatively few problems with NSI. We have a
contract with NSI, a "reciprocity agreement".
As a result of recurrent problems with Register.com, we have imposed a
policy of nacking all requests for transfers to Register.com.
Things are *so* organized in our town!
How organized are they?
They are so organized that --
even the boulevard stop signs are synchronized;-}