<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of authorisation for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
- To: "'Rick Wesson'" <wessorh@xxxxxx>, "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tina Dam'" <dam@xxxxxxxxx>, <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Elana Broitman'" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <grant.forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Karen Lentz'" <lentz@xxxxxxxxx>, <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Ellen Sondheim'" <sondheim@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of authorisation for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:54:20 -0500
- Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <200310081333.36492.wessorh@ar.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We currently allow a customer to request up to 500 transfers in a single
order. They can mix TLDs and they are often from any number of
registrars. We then group the confirmation emails accordingly.
What we would hate to have to revert to is single emails per domain, or
per losing registrar, etc. All that does is inconvenience the registrant
and hamper portability, not improve it.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:34 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Bruce Tonkin; Tina Dam; ross@xxxxxxxxxx; Elana
Broitman; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; grant.forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karen Lentz; halloran@xxxxxxxxx; Ellen
Sondheim
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of authorisation for
use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
Chuck,
I've been unclear.
Account: A
Domain 1: Gaining Registrar X
Domain 2: Gaining Registrar Y
I would like to send one note that is composed of all relivant
information
without being required to dump many simular messages to the same
registrant.
I cannot provide you an as example that you requested, because one does
not
exits.
best,
-rick
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 12:35 pm, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Please provide me an example of a domain name where there is not a 1-1
> mapping between a registrant and a registrar, losing or gaining,
within the
> transfer process.
>
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Com Net Registry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alice's Registry Help Desk
[mailto:support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:47 AM
> > To: Bruce Tonkin; Tina Dam; Gomes, Chuck; ross@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > Elana Broitman; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > grant.forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karen Lentz; halloran@xxxxxxxxx;
> > Ellen Sondheim
> > Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of
> > authorisation for use by losing registrars after a transfer
> > is initiated
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce,
> >
> > your note makes many assumptions one of which is that there is a
> > one to one maping between registrant and domain and a one to
> > one relationship
> > to the domain and the gaining registrar.
> >
> > If an account is moving their domains there will be many
> > domains related to
> > the account which might have several registrants and evern
> > more domains.
> >
> > I prefer a more flexable definition insted of a termplate.
> > Simply define all
> > the elements that are requireed in the note insted of a
> > template that must be
> > followed.
> >
> > An example requirement would simply list all the elemenst you
> > have within angle brackets <>
> >
> > -rick
> >
> > On Tuesday 07 October 2003 2:21 am, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > Below is an updated version.
> > >
> > > The changes include:
> > > - simplified message by removing details of the gaining registrar
> > > (lowers the burden on the losing registrar to collect this
> > > information)
> > >
> > > Further comments welcome.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bruce
> >
> >
**********************************************************************
> >
> > > **
> > > ******************
> > >
> > > An English version of this message is contained below.
> > >
> > > <Insert translation of English version in preferred language of
the
> > > registrant if known>
> > >
> > > ENGLISH VERSION
> > >
> > > DOMAIN NAME TRANSFER
> > >
> > > Attention: <insert Registrant or Administrative Contact of
> >
> > Record as
> >
> > > listed in the WHOIS>
> > >
> > > Re: Transfer of <insert domain name>
> > >
> > > <insert name of losing registrar and/or name of reseller> received
> > > notification on <insert date of notification> that you have
> >
> > requested
> >
> > > a transfer to another domain name registrar.
> > >
> > > If you have authorised this transfer, you do not need to respond
to
> > > this message.
> > >
> > > If you wish to cancel the transfer, please contact us
> > > <insert contact details> within <insert timeframe> days, or the
> > > transfer will proceed.
> > >
> > > [optional] or please go to our website within <insert
> >
> > timeframe> days,
> >
> > > <insert URL of confirmation webpage> to confirm or deny the
> >
> > transfer.
> >
> > > [Note: website to contain text as above, with the option to
> >
> > confirm or
> >
> > > deny the transfer. This option may be presented first at
> >
> > the choice of
> >
> > > the losing registrar]
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|