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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

While not ideal, GoDaddy would support moving forward with the proposed
implementation and revising it going forward, with one exception. The
following paragraph should be deleted. It does not belong here.

"To ensure that registrants are not negatively impacted, it is also
recommended that language should be added to the Registrar Transfer Policy
requiring that registrars who lose a transfer dispute may not charge fixed
fees for revenue loss to registrants unless the registrant was a cause of
the improper transfer."

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:25 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