RE: [registrars] Transfers from up the reseller tree

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

> I think this would be a positive change and provide for 
> greater certainty wrt Registrar business operations. 

Completely agreed - as someone pointed out to me on this specific
question privately "it will be nice to have some rules of engagement to
live by" ;)

> Please 
> keep the constituency updated as usual on the work of the 
> implementation committee.

I most certainly will. The first call is tomorrow...notes to follow.


                       -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 Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:41 PM
> To: 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Transfers from up the reseller tree
> 
> 
> Thanks Ross for this quick clarification.
> 
> I think this would be a positive change and provide for 
> greater certainty wrt Registrar business operations. Please 
> keep the constituency updated as usual on the work of the 
> implementation committee.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:15 PM
> > To: 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrar Constituency'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Transfers from up the reseller tree
> >
> >
> > Not sure I understand the example Bob, but let me take a 
> crack at it.
> >
> > Current Situation:
> > The losing registrar (and therefore *all* of its downstream
> > relationships) can reject a transfer for any reason whatsoever.
> >
> > Transfer TF Proposal:
> > The losing registrar (and therefore *all* of its downstream
> > relationships) can only reject a transfer for very specific reasons.
> >
> > Under the TF proposal, if the losing registrar isn't holding up its 
> > end of the deal, the gaining registrar (in this case, you) would be 
> > able to force settlement of the issue through a third party dispute 
> > resolution process.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> >
> >
> >                        -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: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 11:58 AM
> > > To: Registrar Constituency
> > > Subject: [registrars] Transfers from up the reseller tree
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Colleagues:
> > >
> > > We have an interesting problem for a rejected transfer.
> > >
> > > In this case, the RegistraR approved the transfer.  However
> > > one of its
> > > resellers nacked it because one of the reseller's resellers
> > > asked that it
> > > be nacked because one that ...
> > >
> > > Whoa, let me write that again, identifying primary,
> > > secondary, tertiary
> > > resellers:
> > >
> > > In this case, the RegistraR did not act.  The RegistraR's
> > > primary reseller
> > > was  mute on the request. The RegistraR's secondary reseller
> > > asked the
> > > RegistraR's tertiary reseller if it should be approved.  Said
> > > tertiary
> > > reseller would not approve the transfer so the secondary
> > > reseller  nacked it.
> > >
> > > How will our TF's "Grand Plan" address this kind of case?
> > >
> > > Oh, by the way, PSI-Japan had seven pages of documents 
> supporting the
> > > transfer.  When I requeued the request, the actual registrant
> > > wrote to ask
> > > what was going on, he had long since asked for the transfer
> > > and wondered
> > > why it had not been completed.
> > >
> > > Regards, BobC
> > >
> > >
> >
>