<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Suggestion for Registrars: Consider Allowing Registrant "ACK" for Outgoing Transfers
- To: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Suggestion for Registrars: Consider Allowing Registrant "ACK" for Outgoing Transfers
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:47:35 -0800
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, icann board address <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, icann staff <icann-staff@xxxxxxxxx>
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <20070315211053.53927.qmail@web50004.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George and all,
Yes, and nicely stated here George. What ICANN should do is
issue a mandate that all Registrars must have "ACK" implemented
in no more than three months from the date of the issuance of the
mandate letter date which is sent to each Registrar... If any
registrar fails to have "ACK" implemented by the end of the
three months, it's Accreditation will be immediately revoked,
and further administrative and/or legal action may be considered.
George Kirikos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following up on a thread at:
>
> http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=75034
>
> members of this list who are also members of the Registrars
> constituency might want to encourage their fellow registrars to
> consider implementing "ACK" functionality for outgoing transfers. This
> can be done, while still ensuring domain security, and is consistent
> with the transfers policy.
>
> Some registrars, like NSI for example, have this functionality and thus
> registrants have a good total experience, with transfers completing
> relatively quickly.
>
> With others, one must wait until the registry "default" ACK, which can
> be a very frustrating experience.
>
> By being proactive about raising overall quality amongst registrars, it
> demonstrates that the industry cares about registrants, even when
> losing a particular customer and/or domain. A customer treated with
> respect when they're on their way out the door might remember that
> should they seek a new registrar for other domains in the future.
>
> In the financial industry, it used to be trades cleared in 5 business
> days (i.e. T+5). Nowadays, with greater technology, T+1 is the norm.
> For domains, some registrars are already close to T+0 (or T+0.1), but
> others are stuck in the past.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|