RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrar s after a transfer is initiated
- To: nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrar s after a transfer is initiated
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 04:12:05 -0700
- Cc: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx, ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree with Ross to a certain extent as well. But the current so-called new Transfer Policy will do nothing to build any further trust. It is simply an attempt to shore up an inadequet process. It will not reduce fraudulent transfers, confusion, or gaming. It's the basic framework of the transfer process that's flawed.<br>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing<BR>registrar s after a transfer is initiated<BR>From: "Nikolaj Nyholm" <nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Wed, September 03, 2003 2:10 pm<BR>To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<BR>registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR><BR>I agree w. Ross. It is commonplace with many ccTLD registries that a format-<BR>locked PDF be used for all transfers. The only thing that may be changed is<BR>registrar logo.<BR>For the user this is simple as it helps build trust in a system which isn't<BR>necessarily so easy to understand for anyone beyond this industry.<BR><BR>/n<BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] <BR>> Sent: 3. september 2003 14:31<BR>> To: Tim Ruiz<BR>> Cc: !
'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR>> Subject: Re: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by <BR>> losing registrars after a transfer is initiated<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On 9/3/2003 8:16 AM Tim Ruiz noted that:<BR>> <BR>> > Ross, I have no doubt that would be Tucows' preference.<BR>> <BR>> Its important to our customers that the gaming stop. If <BR>> gaming wasn't an <BR>> issue, we wouldn't need these overly complex impositions on our <BR>> processes. This isn't about libertarian pretensions Tim, its <BR>> about the <BR>> failure of industry to regulate itself in a manner that <BR>> evenly handles <BR>> consumer rights in addition to its own capital interests.<BR>> <BR>> Its called a long-term view of a healthy industry segment - which I <BR>> believe to be the preference of most people that are serious <BR>> about this <BR>> business.<BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> !
-rwr<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>