FW: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo Mechanism - 10-11 a.m. EST ON TUESDAY JUNE 29
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Elana Broitman Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:57 PM To: registrars@dnso.org 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@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
Registrars, I just wanted to point out the fact that ICANN is extremely close to actually implementing the new transfer policy after many, many years of debate and delay. The registries have raised valid concerns that need to be addressed somehow, but we must make it clear to ICANN that this must not delay the implementation of the policy. The new transfer policy has a built-in review and correction mechanism that will easily allow us to "improve" the implementation after we launch it. This gives us the capability to implement v1.1, v1.2 and v1.3 of the new rules in the same way that each of us would release new versions of software following an initial release. It is critical that we don't let potential bugs delay our release of this important policy any further. We could literally spend another three years crafting something perfect, or move forward today with something that is less than perfect, but certainly far preferable to the dismal policy we have been suffering under for the last five years. The registries need to hear from us which makes this is an important phone call, but let us also make it very clear to both the registries and ICANN staff that this policy must be implemented without any further delay and allow concerns such as these to be dealt with by the due process that we have built into the policy. -rwr On behalf of Tucows On 6/24/2004 10:25 AM Elana Broitman noted that:
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Elana Broitman Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:57 PM To: registrars@dnso.org 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@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
-- -rwr "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Elana Broitman Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:25 AM To: registrars@dnso.org Cc: cgomes@verisign.com; dam@icann.org 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Elana Broitman Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:57 PM To: registrars@dnso.org 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@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
participants (3)
-
Elana Broitman -
Ross Wm. Rader -
Tim Ruiz