<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism - 10-11 a.m. EST ON TUESDAY JUNE 29
Dear all,
As GMO definitly supports the new transfer pocily we do not support the
undo transfer mechanism as it is now.
In order to go ahead I would agree to go ahead with it if we have the
insurance the undo mechanism would be improved in a short time after the
implementation.
I still don't understand why it's so difficult for the registries to
remember the original dates of the domain and to put it back in the
previous state.
This undo mechanism will let each registrar to implement it's own
rollback system which I see it as a real registry service instead.
Regards,
Jean-Michel
Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Elana,
In case I can't make the call.
Just a note that I support the current implementation by the registries
as a good first stage.
The new transfers policy is a vast improvement on what we have now.
Currently there is no mechanism of redress when a registrar behaves
inappropriately.
Under the new policy we have:
(1) a clearly defined process that is enforceable
(2) a dispute resolution mechanism
(3) a mechanism to restore the domain to the rightful registrar in the
case of an unauthorised transfer
(4) a process for regular review of the implementation of the policy
I expect that as (1) becomes effective that (3) will hardly ever by
needed. It is not economic to over-engineer an exception process (3)
that if the system is working should never happen.
I welcome the day when steps (2) and (3) can be used to correct
in-appropriate behaviour. I welcome even more ICANN taking enforcement
action against those registrars that are found in breach of the
registrar agreement ie (1).
The cost of dealing with the current system (in terms of the constant
stream of registrant and reseller complaints) far outweighs any costs
associated with a less than perfect (3), given that we will at least
have (1) and (2).
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 25 June 2004 12:25 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; dam@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism - 10-11
a.m. EST ON TUESDAY JUNE 29
Importance: High
Dear all- as you will recall, on June 9th, I had sent a note
about the registries' proposed undo mechanism. Below is my
note, which outlined some of the concerns with the proposal.
The registries state that this is the a reasonable proposal
to enable them to launch an undo mechanism in the near term,
so that further work on it does not stall a transfer policy
change. They have requested our comments prior sending their
final proposal to ICANN.
A number of you have raised concerns. The upcoming call is
with registry representatives to the Transfer Advisory Group.
ICANN is also invited. The call is an opportunity to
directly ask the registries about this mechanism, express any
concerns or suggestions, and/or signify agreement.
Given the length of time already spent on this issue, the
registries would like to move this proposal (with any
potential amendments that may come out of this call) forward
to ICANN without any further vote or additional process after
this call.
So, it is important for you to please join the call.
I apologize in advance to anyone for whom the time is
inconvenient, but our last constituency call was in the
evening in order to accommodate Asia, so this one is meant to
be more friendly to Europe and W. U.S. If you cannot be on
the call, but have comments, please send them ahead of time
and we will raise them for you.
Thank you.
Elana Broitman
P.S. Bob - should we start with 30 lines?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:57 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism
Importance: High
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|