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@schlund.de> To: Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com> Copies to: registrars@dnso.org 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@schlund.de
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@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:53 PM To: Elana Broitman Cc: gTLD RC Planning Committee (GTLD-PLANNING@MUSEDOMA.ORG); 'dam@icann.org' 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