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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

 

That helps but doesn't completely solve the problem. What we proposed,
and I think Melbourne IT proposed something similar, is that the
registrant first go to their current registrar. They log in to their
account and click a button, a link, etc. that says "I want to transfer
this domain to another registrar." The current registrar confirms their
request and then sends the request long with a unique code to the
registry through the SRS. If the request is successful, the code is
provided to the registrant.

 

The registrant hen goes to the new registrar and submits the domain and
code. The new registrar submits the request and code to the registry
through the SRS. If it matches up the transfer is completed within
seconds or minutes.

 

This is better because:

 

1. The current registrar knows best how to communicate with their
registrants, and who to communicate with. Whois data is often 24 hours
old, which is all the gaining registrar has to go on. The current
registrar likely has additional contact information that is not
available through Whois, for example, the billing contact and/or shopper
record (which may or may not be the same).

 

2. Only one confirmation has to be done. Under the current or new
policy, most transfers will still involve two confirmations.

 

3. Disputes between registrars are drastically reduced, and will involve
only the registrant and the losing registrar. The gaining registrar is
only involved in that they will have to comply with the decision.

 

4. Compliance/enforcement is focused. Right now it involves both the
losing and gaining registrar. Has the gaining registrar done their due
diligence with the confirmation? Has the losing registrar
inappropriately denied the transfer?

 

5. It solves the local legal issues some registrars face where they
cannot comply fully with the new policy and their local law at the same
time. They MUST receive confirmation themselves before they let the
transfer go.

 

6. It provides a more predictable process for the registrant and reduces
the possibility of fraudulent transfers.

 

7. The transfer can be completed within seconds or minutes on the
gaining registrar side. Right now we all have transfers that are
sometimes sitting around in process for weeks before we finally get them
through.

 

I realize that this process would require changes both in the SRS and in
the registrars' systems. But I believe the resultant benefits far out
weigh the costs of implementation. That is, if we really want solve the
problem.

 

Tim

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:11 PM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing
registrars after a transfer is initiated

 

Tim, if registrars allow registrants to put their names on lock, the
process as it stands can start at the current registrar

by the registrant going to the current registrar, the current registrar
validating their identity and remobing the lock.

 

Once all registries are switched to EPP then obviously it will always
start at the current registrar.

 

 

Paul

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 4:36 AM
To: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing
registrars after a transfer is initiated

>By far the most preferable approach is for industry to agree on best
>practice approaches.  It is only when there is market failure (partly
>due to the design of the registry transfer business processes that
allow
>a losing registrar to deny a customers right to transfer) that
>regulation should be required.   I believe that the registrars
>constituency did attempt to resolve the issue internally but that
>failed, and domain name users have demanded a change (just look at the
>complaints received by ICANN and registrars on this issue).
 
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.

Tim
 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form  for use by losing
registrars after a transfer is initiated
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 03, 2003 8:09 pm
To: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx

Hello Larry,

> 
> If "must include" then gaming can still be done
> simply by adding other language to the message
> that includes the information specified.

The intent is that additional (often misleading) information cannot be
included in the standardised message.  Registrars are free to send
separate messages that contain any material they want, assuming they are
compliant with local trade practices laws.

> 
> It would probably be a good idea to 
> add some text stating what! it means
> to "change registrar" exactly and what
> the function of a registrar is. Customers often
> don't know what role
> the registrar plays.  

Please suggest some succinct wording.

> I have seen multiple
> cases of customers who are convinced by their
> web hosting company that they need to switch
> registrar in order to get hosting. 

Yes - I have come across this problem too.

A separate issue is probably producing a consumer guide to purchasing
domain names.
I am planning to have a go at producing one for use in Australia (on a
voluntary basis), with input from other registrars.

By far the most preferable approach is for industry to agree on best
practice approaches.  It is only when there is market failure (partly
due to the design of the registry transfer business processes that allow
a losing registrar to deny a customers right to transfer) that
regulation! should be required.   I believe that the registrars
constituency did attempt to resolve the issue internally but that
failed, and domain name users have demanded a change (just look at the
complaints received by ICANN and registrars on this issue).

Regards,
Bruce