RE: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of authorisation for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated

["Donny Simonton" <donny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim.  If you must send one email per domain, this would
definitely not improve the system.

Donny

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:54 PM
> To: 'Rick Wesson'; '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
> 
> 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]
> 
> 
>