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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

True. But why should including the losing be required?

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:09 PM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Donny Simonton'; 'Rick Wesson'; '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

Isn't it possible that registrants who have lots of names at various
registrars won't readily know what registrar they have the names with?
I
will leave up to the registrars as the experts on this.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Com Net Registry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:59 PM
> To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Donny Simonton'; 'Rick Wesson'; '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
> 
> 
> Remind me again why we need to name the losing registrar? The 
> less we have to parse out of the dozens of different whois 
> formats for COM and NET names the better/quicker this process 
> will work for the registrant.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:45 PM
> To: 'Donny Simonton'; 'Tim Ruiz'; '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
> 
> What about modifying the template to allow for multiple 
> domains that could be listed along with the name of the 
> losing registrar?
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Com Net Registry
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Donny Simonton [mailto:donny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:00 PM
> > To: 'Tim Ruiz'; '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
> > 
> > 
> > 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]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>