Thank you Steve and group for this use case. Few quick comments. I have the feeling that the RFI assumes that Registrars have a transfer process in place that is identical for every Registrar. The request itself at the Registry level is identical, the procedure however before the transfer is requested at the Registry level is different for Registrars and can fail at many levels depending on the procedure being used. The RFI does not make a difference between Registrar business models. The numbers when it comes to support will vary wildly with Registrars who only deal with resellers compared to Registrars who deal with end users/registrants. Best regards, Theo Geurts Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: support@realtimeregister.com Steve Chan schreef op 2015-02-26 02:14:
Dear WG Members,
Per the working group call held on Tuesday 24 February 2015, staff is re-circulating the IRTP use case/executive summary document for the group to consider whether it would like to pursue this effort. If there is interest in circulating this use case to interested parties (e.g., to registrars, registries, IRTP Part D WG, etc.), staff feels that it is critical that the WG review and refine the use case. As was discussed on the call, while the use case may not be critical to developing the recommendations, it does provide some benefits, chief amongst those is providing real world testing and refinement of the data request template. Please discuss on list the direction the group would like to take for the use case exercise.
Best,
STEVEN CHAN Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg