Re: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@xxxxxxx>]

I support this statement.

siegfried

On 11 Jun 2004 at 11:32, Thomas Keller wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:32:23 +0200
From:           	Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:             	Elana Broitman <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Copies to:      	registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject:        	Re: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism
Organization:   	Schlund + Partner AG

> 
> 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