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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

Thanks for clarifying. It is my mistake. I thought we were talking about
the confirmation sent by the gaining registrar.

In the confirmation from the gaining registrar there should be no
further burden put upon the gaining registrar to identify the losing
registrar in the email unless we are going to also require a standard
Whois format. I don't believe that was part of the policy
recommendations and so we have some flexibility on that. I would
strongly encourage that we keep it at the option of the gaining
registrar.

So the text in the email should be revised to:

I confirm that I wish to proceed with the transfer of 
<insert domain name> to <insert name of gaining registrar>."

Several registrars still display the name of the reseller, not their
own, or don't display a registrar at all. The formats are all over the
map and just successfully parsing out an admin email address for an
automated process is a huge challenge. The more that is required that
causes transfer requests to end up in a manual process, the more we slow
it down for the registrant.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 8:53 PM
To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes, Chuck; Donny Simonton; Rick Wesson; 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


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