<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Tim,
if registrars allow registrants to put their names on lock, the process as it
stands can start at the current registrar</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>by the
registrant going to the current registrar, the current registrar validating
their identity and remobing the lock.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Once
all registries are switched to EPP then obviously it will always start at the
current registrar.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Paul</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=953180905-05092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Tim Ruiz
[mailto:tim@godaddy.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 04, 2003 4:36
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<BR><B>Cc:</B>
registrars@dnso.org; erlich@domainregistry.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[registrars] DRAFT Standard form for use by losing registrars after a transfer
is initiated<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>>By far the most preferable approach is for
industry to agree on best<BR>>practice approaches. It is only when
there is market failure (partly<BR>>due to the design of the registry
transfer business processes that allow<BR>>a losing registrar to deny a
customers right to transfer) that<BR>>regulation should be required. I
believe that the registrars<BR>>constituency did attempt to resolve the issue
internally but that<BR>>failed, and domain name users have demanded a change
(just look at the<BR>>complaints received by ICANN and registrars on this
issue).<BR> <BR>Not allowing the losing registrar to deny would only create
a new problem. Currently, there is no way for the gaining registrar to be
certain they have received valid approval. It is only valid from a
process point of view. Given the international nature of this industry, the real
solution is to have the process start with the registrant's
current registrar.<BR><BR>Tim<BR> <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>--------
Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [registrars] DRAFT Standard form
for use by losing<BR>registrars after a transfer is initiated<BR>From:
"Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><BR>Date: Wed, September
03, 2003 8:09 pm<BR>To: "Larry Erlich"
<erlich@domainregistry.com><BR>Cc: registrars@dnso.org<BR><BR>Hello
Larry,<BR><BR>> <BR>> If "must include" then gaming can still be
done<BR>> simply by adding other language to the message<BR>> that
includes the information specified.<BR><BR>The intent is that additional
(often misleading) information cannot be<BR>included in the standardised
message. Registrars are free to send<BR>separate messages that contain
any material they want, assuming they are<BR>compliant with local trade
practices laws.<BR><BR>> <BR>> It would probably be a good idea to
<BR>> add some text stating what! it means<BR>> to "change registrar"
exactly and what<BR>> the function of a registrar is. Customers
often<BR>> don't know what role<BR>> the registrar plays.
<BR><BR>Please suggest some succinct wording.<BR><BR>> I have seen
multiple<BR>> cases of customers who are convinced by their<BR>> web
hosting company that they need to switch<BR>> registrar in order to get
hosting. <BR><BR>Yes - I have come across this problem too.<BR><BR>A separate
issue is probably producing a consumer guide to purchasing<BR>domain
names.<BR>I am planning to have a go at producing one for use in Australia (on
a<BR>voluntary basis), with input from other registrars.<BR><BR>By far the
most preferable approach is for industry to agree on best<BR>practice
approaches. It is only when there is market failure (partly<BR>due to
the design of the registry transfer business processes that allow<BR>a losing
registrar to deny a customers right to transfer) that<BR>regulation! should be
required. I believe that the registrars<BR>constituency did attempt to
resolve the issue internally but that<BR>failed, and domain name users have
demanded a change (just look at the<BR>complaints received by ICANN and
registrars on this issue).<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Bruce </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>