[registrars] Third Draft Standard form of authorisation for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
Tim Ruiz
tim at godaddy.com
Wed Oct 8 21:59:22 UTC 2003
Remind me again why we need to name the losing registrar? The less we
have to parse out of the dozens of different whois formats for COM and
NET names the better/quicker this process will work for the registrant.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:45 PM
To: 'Donny Simonton'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Rick Wesson'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Bruce
Tonkin'; 'Tina Dam'; ross at tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman';
Jeff.Neuman at NeuLevel.biz; paul at internetters.co.uk;
roessler at does-not-exist.org; grant.forsyth at team.telstraclear.co.nz;
sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar; 'Karen Lentz'; halloran at icann.org; 'Ellen
Sondheim'
Cc: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of authorisation for
use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
What about modifying the template to allow for multiple domains that
could
be listed along with the name of the losing registrar?
Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Com Net Registry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donny Simonton [mailto:donny at intercosmos.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:00 PM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Bruce
> Tonkin'; 'Tina Dam'; ross at tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman';
> Jeff.Neuman at NeuLevel.biz; paul at internetters.co.uk;
> roessler at does-not-exist.org;
> grant.forsyth at team.telstraclear.co.nz;
> sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar; 'Karen Lentz';
> halloran at icann.org; 'Ellen Sondheim'
> Cc: registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of
> authorisation for use by losing registrars after a transfer
> is initiated
>
>
> I agree with Tim. If you must send one email per domain,
> this would definitely not improve the system.
>
> Donny
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> > registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:54 PM
> > To: 'Rick Wesson'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Tina Dam';
> > ross at tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman'; Jeff.Neuman at NeuLevel.biz;
> > paul at internetters.co.uk; roessler at does-not-exist.org;
> > grant.forsyth at team.telstraclear.co.nz; sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar;
> > 'Karen Lentz'; halloran at icann.org; 'Ellen Sondheim'
> > Cc: registrars at dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of
> authorisation
> > for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
> >
> > We currently allow a customer to request up to 500 transfers in a
> > single order. They can mix TLDs and they are often from any
> number of
> > registrars. We then group the confirmation emails accordingly.
> >
> > What we would hate to have to revert to is single emails
> per domain,
> > or per losing registrar, etc. All that does is inconvenience the
> > registrant and hamper portability, not improve it.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:34 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Bruce Tonkin; Tina Dam; ross at tucows.com; Elana
> > Broitman; Jeff.Neuman at NeuLevel.biz; paul at internetters.co.uk;
> > roessler at does-not-exist.org; grant.forsyth at team.telstraclear.co.nz;
> > sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar; Karen Lentz; halloran at icann.org; Ellen
> > Sondheim
> > Cc: registrars at dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of
> authorisation
> > for use by losing registrars after a transfer is initiated
> >
> >
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I've been unclear.
> >
> > Account: A
> > Domain 1: Gaining Registrar X
> > Domain 2: Gaining Registrar Y
> >
> > I would like to send one note that is composed of all relivant
> > information without being required to dump many simular messages to
> > the same registrant.
> >
> > I cannot provide you an as example that you requested, because one
> > does not exits.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > -rick
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 08 October 2003 12:35 pm, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > Rick,
> > >
> > > Please provide me an example of a domain name where there
> is not a
> > > 1-1 mapping between a registrant and a registrar, losing
> or gaining,
> > within the
> > > transfer process.
> > >
> > > Chuck Gomes
> > > VeriSign Com Net Registry
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Alice's Registry Help Desk
> > [mailto:support at alices-registry.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:47 AM
> > > > To: Bruce Tonkin; Tina Dam; Gomes, Chuck;
> ross at tucows.com; Elana
> > > > Broitman; Jeff.Neuman at NeuLevel.biz; paul at internetters.co.uk;
> > > > roessler at does-not-exist.org;
> > > > grant.forsyth at team.telstraclear.co.nz;
> > > > sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar; Karen Lentz;
> halloran at icann.org; Ellen
> > > > Sondheim
> > > > Cc: registrars at dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] Third Draft Standard form of
> > > > authorisation for use by losing registrars after a transfer is
> > > > initiated
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruce,
> > > >
> > > > your note makes many assumptions one of which is that
> there is a
> > > > one to one maping between registrant and domain and a
> one to one
> > > > relationship to the domain and the gaining registrar.
> > > >
> > > > If an account is moving their domains there will be
> many domains
> > > > related to the account which might have several registrants and
> > > > evern more domains.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer a more flexable definition insted of a
> termplate. Simply
> > > > define all the elements that are requireed in the note
> insted of a
> > > > template that must be
> > > > followed.
> > > >
> > > > An example requirement would simply list all the
> elemenst you have
> > > > within angle brackets <>
> > > >
> > > > -rick
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 07 October 2003 2:21 am, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > > > > Hello All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is an updated version.
> > > > >
> > > > > The changes include:
> > > > > - simplified message by removing details of the gaining
> > > > > registrar (lowers the burden on the losing registrar
> to collect
> > > > > this
> > > > > information)
> > > > >
> > > > > Further comments welcome.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> **********************************************************************
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > > ******************
> > > > >
> > > > > An English version of this message is contained below.
> > > > >
> > > > > <Insert translation of English version in preferred
> language of
> > the
> > > > > registrant if known>
> > > > >
> > > > > ENGLISH VERSION
> > > > >
> > > > > DOMAIN NAME TRANSFER
> > > > >
> > > > > Attention: <insert Registrant or Administrative Contact of
> > > >
> > > > Record as
> > > >
> > > > > listed in the WHOIS>
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: Transfer of <insert domain name>
> > > > >
> > > > > <insert name of losing registrar and/or name of reseller>
> > > > > received notification on <insert date of
> notification> that you
> > > > > have
> > > >
> > > > requested
> > > >
> > > > > a transfer to another domain name registrar.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have authorised this transfer, you do not need
> to respond
> > to
> > > > > this message.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you wish to cancel the transfer, please contact us <insert
> > > > > contact details> within <insert timeframe> days, or
> the transfer
> > > > > will proceed.
> > > > >
> > > > > [optional] or please go to our website within <insert
> > > >
> > > > timeframe> days,
> > > >
> > > > > <insert URL of confirmation webpage> to confirm or deny the
> > > >
> > > > transfer.
> > > >
> > > > > [Note: website to contain text as above, with the option to
> > > >
> > > > confirm or
> > > >
> > > > > deny the transfer. This option may be presented first at
> > > >
> > > > the choice of
> > > >
> > > > > the losing registrar]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the registrars
mailing list