RE: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Elana,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I have no problem with their proposal, although I don't fully understand why it is so difficult to remove
the added time and restore the original expiration date. The only difficult part of that from my perspective is
when removing the time would leave the domain in an expired state. But that's solveable also.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>In any event, this just needs to get done one way or the other. In regards to&nbsp;the concerns/issues you
listed, I&nbsp; just don't see&nbsp;any of them really being a problem or coming up all that often. The costs
to the customer of losing control of his name can be significant as well. We just need to get&nbsp;it back as
quickly as possible.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim<BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original
Message --------<BR>Subject: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism<BR>From: "Elana Broitman"
&lt;ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Wed, June 09, 2004 3:57 pm<BR>To: registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Dear all -
one of the last remaining issues before ICANN can publish the<BR>changed transfers policy is how the registries
will address the transfer<BR>undo mechanism. &nbsp;Attached is their proposal. &nbsp;Let's see if we
can<BR>discuss it by email, and if need be, we can also hold a conference call.<BR><BR>As you will see, the
registries have indicated that this is the least<BR>costly alternative for them to implement.<BR>It should be
noted, however, that the proposed implementation of the<BR>"undo" transfer command may cause the following
problems for registrars:<BR><BR>1. &nbsp;An undo transfer command that does not restore the domain record
to<BR>its 'original state' will place the registrar that re-gains the name<BR>(Registrar A) in the position of
having to support a registration for<BR>one or multiple years (depending on the number of years activated
per<BR>transfer) without realizing revenue from the registrant. &nbsp;There may be<BR>added costs associated
with maintaining the additional year(s) for such<BR>registrar - customer service, technology, etc.<BR><BR>2.
This may also result in anniversary dates among domain names and<BR>related products that do not match.
&nbsp;For example, email or hosting<BR>products that must be renewed prior to domain expiration,
causing<BR>concerns and customer confusion. &nbsp;This may lead to unnecessary, customer<BR>unfriendly and
costly "clean up" issues.<BR><BR>3. In effect, the innocent registrant may be prejudiced by the bad acts<BR>of
the wrongful registrar. &nbsp;Yet, the "bad" actor does not bear the costs<BR>of restitution.<BR><BR>4. The
registrant is forced to take on additional years even if he/she<BR>is not interested in doing so. &nbsp;The
registrant will have paid a fee for<BR>the transfer to the gaining (unauthorized) registrar and
perhaps<BR>unwittingly paid for additional years.<BR><BR>5. The registry is paid $6 for an unauthorized and
unwanted transfer.<BR><BR>6. Maintaining additional years when the registrant does not want them<BR>would have
the effect of artificially keeping a domain name out of the<BR>pool for other prospective
registrants.<BR><BR>Your comments would be appreciated. &nbsp;Elana <BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] <BR>Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:53 PM<BR>To: Elana
Broitman<BR>Cc: gTLD RC Planning Committee (GTLD-PLANNING@xxxxxxxxxxxx);<BR>'dam@xxxxxxxxx'<BR>Subject:
Transfer Undo Mechanism<BR>Importance: High<BR><BR><BR>Elana,<BR><BR>The gTLD Registry Constituency unanimously
supports the attached<BR>approach to providing a transfer undo mechanism in support of the new<BR>transfer
policy. I would like your advice with regard to how it might be<BR>best to discuss this with registrars.
&nbsp;Some of us in the gTLD Registry<BR>Constituency had some telephone conversations with a few registrars
with<BR>somewhat mixed results. A main issue of controversy among those we<BR>talked to was whether or not
there should be a means of compensating a<BR>registrar for lost revenue opportunity. &nbsp;Because that is
really an issue<BR>between registrars, it seemed best to suggest that registrars work that<BR>out among
themselves as suggested in the proposed approach. To try to<BR>resolve that before moving forward with
implementation of the new<BR>transfer policy would add significant additional delays that seem
very<BR>undesirable.<BR><BR>Chuck Gomes<BR>VeriSign Com Net Registry </BLOCKQUOTE>