Re: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all,

this proposal seems to shift the whole workload of the undo process
from the registries to the registrars. Even thought that most of it
might not be too difficult for us I don't understand why we should
take on such work at all. After all the registries get payed up to
$6 a domain name a year and it is my opinion that this fee should 
certainly include such a technical change. Therefore I STRONGLY OBJECT
against this proposal and would suggest that the RC is formulating
an answer urging them to do the job they signed up for instead of 
trying to sneak out of their obligations. After all a smooth transfer 
procedure is to their benefit as well and not only a sole registrar 
desire which has been imposed on them.

tom

--

Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Brauerstrasse 48         		Tel. +49-721-91374-534
76135 Karlsruhe, Germany               	Fax  +49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                  	tom@xxxxxxxxxx      

Am 09.06.2004 schrieb Elana Broitman:
> 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
> 
> 



Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w