<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
- To: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 04:35:55 -0700
- Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx, erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>By far the most preferable approach is for industry to agree on best<BR>>practice approaches. It is only when there is market failure (partly<BR>>due to the design of the registry transfer business processes that allow<BR>>a losing registrar to deny a customers right to transfer) that<BR>>regulation should be required. I believe that the registrars<BR>>constituency did attempt to resolve the issue internally but that<BR>>failed, and domain name users have demanded a change (just look at the<BR>>complaints received by ICANN and registrars on this issue).<br>
<br>
Not allowing the losing registrar to deny would only create a new problem. Currently, there is no way for the gaining registrar to be certain they have received valid approval. It is only valid from a process point of view. Given the international nature of this industry, the real solution is to have the process start with the registrant's current registrar.<BR><br>
Tim<br>
<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>registrars after a transfer is initiated<BR>From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Wed, September 03, 2003 8:09 pm<BR>To: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Hello Larry,<BR><BR>> <BR>> If "must include" then gaming can still be done<BR>> simply by adding other language to the message<BR>> that includes the information specified.<BR><BR>The intent is that additional (often misleading) information cannot be<BR>included in the standardised message. Registrars are free to send<BR>separate messages that contain any material they want, assuming they are<BR>compliant with local trade practices laws.<BR><BR>> <BR>> It would probably be a good idea to <BR>> add some text stating what!
it means<BR>> to "change registrar" exactly and what<BR>> the function of a registrar is. Customers often<BR>> don't know what role<BR>> the registrar plays. <BR><BR>Please suggest some succinct wording.<BR><BR>> I have seen multiple<BR>> cases of customers who are convinced by their<BR>> web hosting company that they need to switch<BR>> registrar in order to get hosting. <BR><BR>Yes - I have come across this problem too.<BR><BR>A separate issue is probably producing a consumer guide to purchasing<BR>domain names.<BR>I am planning to have a go at producing one for use in Australia (on a<BR>voluntary basis), with input from other registrars.<BR><BR>By far the most preferable approach is for industry to agree on best<BR>practice approaches. It is only when there is market failure (partly<BR>due to the design of the registry transfer business processes that allow<BR>a losing registrar to deny a customers right to transfer) that<BR>regulation!
should be required. I believe that the registrars<BR>constituency did attempt to resolve the issue internally but that<BR>failed, and domain name users have demanded a change (just look at the<BR>complaints received by ICANN and registrars on this issue).<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Bruce </BLOCKQUOTE>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|