RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I feel it's unfortunate that anyone believes this new policy will cause
any kind of real change in the status quo. It is the same old transfer
process with some attempts to "regulate" certain aspects of it under the
guise that it will somehow improve the customer's experience. In my
opinion, as a whole, it will have no material impact on the real
problems, in the short or long-term.

But that was a different discussion. We have what we have. This is about
the standardized form of authorization. I'm not saying we shouldn't have
one. I'm simply making a suggestion in response to Bruce's inquiry that
the form be defined in a fashion similar to the way ICANN recently
defined the WDRP notice. There are specifics about what it must include
and a Model form as an example.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:31 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing
registrars after a transfer is initiated

On 9/3/2003 8:16 AM Tim Ruiz noted that:

> Ross, I have no doubt that would be Tucows' preference.

Its important to our customers that the gaming stop. If gaming wasn't an

issue, we wouldn't need these overly complex impositions on our 
processes. This isn't about libertarian pretensions Tim, its about the 
failure of industry to regulate itself in a manner that evenly handles 
consumer rights in addition to its own capital interests.

Its called a long-term view of a healthy industry segment - which I 
believe to be the preference of most people that are serious about this 
business.

-- 


                        -rwr