[registrars] DROA Notice

[Jordyn Buchanan]

I think we're probably one of the registrars who Ross is asserting were
"denying all outbound transfers".  Without re-opening an age-old debate,
I'll note that although we did not permit transfers where we could not
verify the registrant's intent to transfer, we certainly permitted a
significant number of transfers away, so only rather creative
interpretations of the word "all" would be applicable.

More importantly, as Tim points out, portability is no better under the
new transfer policy--the percentage of transfers that succeeds seems to
be no better now than under the previous policy, with the exception of
names managed by registrants unlucky enough to misunderstand what
locking does.

Jordyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:14 AM
To: ross at tucows.com
Cc: John Berryhill; 'Registrars Constituency'; Jim Archer
Subject: RE: [registrars] DROA Notice

I think what Jim actually said is that he knows his customers and how
best to contact them, something I think is true for the majority of
registrars. The few that were/are denying all outbound transfers need to
be dealt with. But for the most part, new policy development hasn't
changed that.

Tim Ruiz
VP, Domain Services
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
Office: 319-294-3940
Fax: 480-247-4516
tim at godaddy.com


 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] DROA Notice
From: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
Date: Wed, November 09, 2005 7:55 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>
Cc: John Berryhill <john at johnberryhill.com>,  'Registrars Constituency'
<registrars at dnso.org>, Jim Archer <jarcher at registrationtek.com>

Tim Ruiz wrote:

> When do you
> expect that the Transfers WG will get active again?

No current schedule. The work has taken a backseat to other issues. 
Unfortunately, our agenda has been victimized substantially over the
last year as we reacted to crisis' created elsewhere (.net, .com
agreements). The plate will continue to be "too full" as long as the
settlement agreement is taking the lionshare of our attention.

> 
>> The notion that registrars are going to manually verify for
>> each transfer out and cancel those that are inappropriate 
>> is about as ridiculous...
> 
> Not true. We were successfully doing just that. What the policy has
done
> is taken away that choice from registrars who are capable of doing
just
> that.

I'd be interested in learning more about this process. I'm aware that 
many registrars were denying all outbound transfers, but unaware that 
some were actually manually verifying all transfers out based on a 
personal relationship with their registrants as Jim implied. I suppose 
it is possible on some small scale, but hadn't considered it doable on a

large-scale basis.

-ross