RE: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim - I agree with you.  Not sure what the difficulty is, but they did
indicate that undoing the date will delay implementation.
 
I think a key issue for registrars to discuss among ourselves is how a
registrar that wins the dispute can effectively get the registration fee
from the registrar that erroneously transferred in the name and got the
payment. It seems to me that only registries have any effective remedy
because they have funds from all of us.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
	Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 8:59 AM
	To: Elana Broitman
	Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
	Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism
	
	
	Elana,
	 
	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.
	 
	In any event, this just needs to get done one way or the other.
In regards to the concerns/issues you listed, I  just don't see 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 it back as quickly as possible.
	 
	Tim
	
	


		-------- Original Message --------
		Subject: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism
		From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
		Date: Wed, June 09, 2004 3:57 pm
		To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
		
		Dear all - one of the last remaining issues before ICANN
can publish the
		changed transfers policy is how the registries will
address the transfer
		undo mechanism.  Attached is their proposal.  Let's see
if we can
		discuss it by email, and if need be, we can also hold a
conference call.
		
		As you will see, the registries have indicated that this
is the least
		costly alternative for them to implement.
		It should be noted, however, that the proposed
implementation of the
		"undo" transfer command may cause the following problems
for registrars:
		
		1.  An undo transfer command that does not restore the
domain record to
		its 'original state' will place the registrar that
re-gains the name
		(Registrar A) in the position of having to support a
registration for
		one or multiple years (depending on the number of years
activated per
		transfer) without realizing revenue from the registrant.
There may be
		added costs associated with maintaining the additional
year(s) for such
		registrar - customer service, technology, etc.
		
		2. This may also result in anniversary dates among
domain names and
		related products that do not match.  For example, email
or hosting
		products that must be renewed prior to domain
expiration, causing
		concerns and customer confusion.  This may lead to
unnecessary, customer
		unfriendly and costly "clean up" issues.
		
		3. In effect, the innocent registrant may be prejudiced
by the bad acts
		of the wrongful registrar.  Yet, the "bad" actor does
not bear the costs
		of restitution.
		
		4. The registrant is forced to take on additional years
even if he/she
		is not interested in doing so.  The registrant will have
paid a fee for
		the transfer to the gaining (unauthorized) registrar and
perhaps
		unwittingly paid for additional years.
		
		5. The registry is paid $6 for an unauthorized and
unwanted transfer.
		
		6. Maintaining additional years when the registrant does
not want them
		would have the effect of artificially keeping a domain
name out of the
		pool for other prospective registrants.
		
		Your comments would be appreciated.  Elana 
		
		-----Original Message-----
		From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
		Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:53 PM
		To: Elana Broitman
		Cc: gTLD RC Planning Committee
(GTLD-PLANNING@xxxxxxxxxxxx);
		'dam@xxxxxxxxx'
		Subject: Transfer Undo Mechanism
		Importance: High
		
		
		Elana,
		
		The gTLD Registry Constituency unanimously supports the
attached
		approach to providing a transfer undo mechanism in
support of the new
		transfer policy. I would like your advice with regard to
how it might be
		best to discuss this with registrars.  Some of us in the
gTLD Registry
		Constituency had some telephone conversations with a few
registrars with
		somewhat mixed results. A main issue of controversy
among those we
		talked to was whether or not there should be a means of
compensating a
		registrar for lost revenue opportunity.  Because that is
really an issue
		between registrars, it seemed best to suggest that
registrars work that
		out among themselves as suggested in the proposed
approach. To try to
		resolve that before moving forward with implementation
of the new
		transfer policy would add significant additional delays
that seem very
		undesirable.
		
		Chuck Gomes
		VeriSign Com Net Registry