Re: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism - 10-11 a.m. EST ON TUESDAY JUNE 29

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems that there is some confusion about my actual message. To make it
short my message in on sentence is:

Let's implement the policy as it is proposed as soon as possible but schedule a 
review of the undo procedure in the near future.

Best,

tom

Am 25.06.2004 schrieb Thomas Keller:
> Hello,
> 
> since I will definitely not be able to join the call next week I take my
> shot now.
> 
> I agree with Bruce that the proposed undo policy is a good first step 
> and that this issue should not delay the overall implementatin of the
> new transfer policy. I nevertheless have to disagree regarding the 
> over-engineering part. Even thought that this situation is unlikely
> to occur (and this needs to be proofen in the future) the technical 
> implementation should be as clean and customer friendly as possible.
> After all would you burden your customer with such an process I really
> doubt it. Don't you think that we can expect the same amount of service
> from our suppliers as our customers expect from us?
> 
> Best,
> 
> tom
> 
> Am 25.06.2004 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
> > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Gruss,
> 
> tom
> 
> (__)        
> (OO)_____  
> (oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
>   | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
>   w w w  w  
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

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