<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=555591913-10062004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Tim -
I agree with you. Not sure what the difficulty is, but they did indicate
that undoing the date will delay implementation.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=555591913-10062004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=555591913-10062004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
think a key issue for registrars to discuss among ourselves is how a registrar
that wins the dispute can effectively get the registration fee from the
registrar that erroneously transferred in the name and got the payment. It seems
to me that only registries have any effective remedy because they have funds
from all of us.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<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, June 10, 2004 8:59
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Elana Broitman<BR><B>Cc:</B>
registrars@dnso.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo
Mechanism<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Elana,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>--------
Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [registrars] FW: Transfer Undo
Mechanism<BR>From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com><BR>Date:
Wed, June 09, 2004 3:57 pm<BR>To: registrars@dnso.org<BR><BR>Dear all - one
of the last remaining issues before ICANN can publish the<BR>changed
transfers policy is how the registries will address the transfer<BR>undo
mechanism. Attached is their proposal. Let's see if we
can<BR>discuss it by email, and if need be, we can also hold a conference
call.<BR><BR>As you will see, the registries have indicated that this is the
least<BR>costly alternative for them to implement.<BR>It should be noted,
however, that the proposed implementation of the<BR>"undo" transfer command
may cause the following problems for registrars:<BR><BR>1. An undo
transfer command that does not restore the domain record to<BR>its 'original
state' will place the registrar that re-gains the name<BR>(Registrar A) in
the position of having to support a registration for<BR>one or multiple
years (depending on the number of years activated per<BR>transfer) without
realizing revenue from the registrant. There may be<BR>added costs
associated with maintaining the additional year(s) for such<BR>registrar -
customer service, technology, etc.<BR><BR>2. This may also result in
anniversary dates among domain names and<BR>related products that do not
match. For example, email or hosting<BR>products that must be renewed
prior to domain expiration, causing<BR>concerns and customer confusion.
This may lead to unnecessary, customer<BR>unfriendly and costly "clean
up" issues.<BR><BR>3. In effect, the innocent registrant may be prejudiced
by the bad acts<BR>of the wrongful registrar. Yet, the "bad" actor
does not bear the costs<BR>of restitution.<BR><BR>4. The registrant is
forced to take on additional years even if he/she<BR>is not interested in
doing so. The registrant will have paid a fee for<BR>the transfer to
the gaining (unauthorized) registrar and perhaps<BR>unwittingly paid for
additional years.<BR><BR>5. The registry is paid $6 for an unauthorized and
unwanted transfer.<BR><BR>6. Maintaining additional years when the
registrant does not want them<BR>would have the effect of artificially
keeping a domain name out of the<BR>pool for other prospective
registrants.<BR><BR>Your comments would be appreciated. Elana
<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Gomes, Chuck
[mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] <BR>Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:53
PM<BR>To: Elana Broitman<BR>Cc: gTLD RC Planning Committee
(GTLD-PLANNING@MUSEDOMA.ORG);<BR>'dam@icann.org'<BR>Subject: Transfer Undo
Mechanism<BR>Importance: High<BR><BR><BR>Elana,<BR><BR>The gTLD Registry
Constituency unanimously supports the attached<BR>approach to providing a
transfer undo mechanism in support of the new<BR>transfer policy. I would
like your advice with regard to how it might be<BR>best to discuss this with
registrars. Some of us in the gTLD Registry<BR>Constituency had some
telephone conversations with a few registrars with<BR>somewhat mixed
results. A main issue of controversy among those we<BR>talked to was whether
or not there should be a means of compensating a<BR>registrar for lost
revenue opportunity. Because that is really an issue<BR>between
registrars, it seemed best to suggest that registrars work that<BR>out among
themselves as suggested in the proposed approach. To try to<BR>resolve that
before moving forward with implementation of the new<BR>transfer policy
would add significant additional delays that seem
very<BR>undesirable.<BR><BR>Chuck Gomes<BR>VeriSign Com Net Registry
</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>