Elana,
I have no problem with their proposal, although I don't fully understand
why it is so difficult to remove the added time and restore the original
expiration date. The only difficult part of that from my perspective is when
removing the time would leave the domain in an expired state. But that's
solveable also.
In any event, this just needs to get done one way or the other. In
regards to the concerns/issues you listed, I just don't
see any of them really being a problem or coming up all that often. The
costs to the customer of losing control of his name can be significant as
well. We just need to get it back as quickly as possible.
Tim
--------
Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo
Mechanism
From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
Date:
Wed, June 09, 2004 3:57 pm
To: registrars@dnso.org
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