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

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Standardized forms were explicitly one of the policy recommendations approved by ICANN.  While I understand Tim's concerns with over-regulation and formatting, the benefit of standard forms is that both gaining and losing registrars have a greater sense of reliance on the other party following proper procedures and not sending deceptive marketing.  This is particularly important for losing registrars, which no longer have the right to nack if they don't hear back from the customer.

Thanks

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:05 PM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Alice's Registry Help Desk'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Donny
Simonton'; '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 think this is going backwards.  There was previously agreement on a
template (standardized form).  The recommendations that were approved
included the use of standardized forms.

That aside, why can't this need be met with a standardized form?  That's
really not hard to do as I see it.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Com Net Registry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:10 PM
> To: 'Alice's Registry Help Desk'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Donny 
> Simonton'; '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
> 
> 
> Rick, I had suggested the same thing and agree with you 100%. 
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alice's Registry Help Desk [mailto:support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 4:02 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Donny Simonton'; 'Tim Ruiz'; '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'll state my desire again:
>    o no template
>    o a mininmum set of requirements of what needs to be in the notice.
> 
> -rick 
> 
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 2:45 pm, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 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]
> 
>