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

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Tim,

> 
> 
> 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.

I think there may be some confusion.

In the context of the message from a losing registrar to a registrant to
confirm whether the registrant did authorise the transfer, the name of
the losing registrar/reseller is the name of the party actually sending
the email.  The notification in this instance is from the registry.

Ie
<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. 

Could be an email from GoDaddy, stating:
GoDaddy received notification on 10 Oct that you have requested a
transfer to another domain name registrar.

Or an email from Melbourne IT, to a registrant relating to a domain name
registered through a reseller (e.g Yahoo) could state:
Yahoo received notification on 10 Oct that you have requested a transfer
to another registrar.

So the intent of the field is to allow you as the losing registrar
seeking to check whether the registrant did authorise the transfer
control over how the communication is branded.  There is no parsing of
emails, etc it is purely something your system would generate.

If you wish you could simply say "we", but that would be your choice:
Ie
We received notification on 10 Oct that you have requested a transfer to
another domain name registrar.

So the field in this standard message is a branding field.

Note there are two separate standard messages:
>From Gaining registrar to registrant before a transfer is initiated at
the registry
>From Losing registrar to registrant after the transfer is initiated at
the registry

Regards,
Bruce