RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III

[Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet@xxxxxxx>]

Hello,

See my comments in the last mail.

I forgotten to tell you that I will not be available next week.

And I will be off line from the 29th of August to the 7 of September.

I will be in holidays in Egypt in a boat for scuba diving.

Sorry for that.

Good work.

All the best

 

Sébastien Bachollet

Président

 <mailto:sebastien.bachollet@xxxxxxx> sebastien.bachollet@xxxxxxx

 <http://www.egeni.org> www.egeni.org

 <http://www.isoc.fr> www.isoc.fr

 

De : owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Trachtenberg,
Marc H.
Envoyé : mardi 26 août 2008 18:52
À : 'Glen de Saint Géry'; Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III

 

I think first we need to define "partial-bulk transfer."  In other words, do
we mean only registrar-initiated transfers?  

[SBT] At least in this phase of the work we need to open and a ?partial-bulk
transfer? can be initiate by either a registrar, a reseller, an user company
or an individual user. Multiple reasons can create this need: merger or
acquisition for registrar or any other company, to be able to have one
single registrar or because the new one offer a better service ? price ? 

How many domain names are the minimum for a "partial-bulk transfer"?  

[SBT] Do we need?

Are these transfers that are not treated as renewals?

[SBT] Can you be more explicit in that question?

 


Marc H. Trachtenberg
 
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703
T: +1 (312) 558-7964
F: +1 (312) 558-5700
C: +1 (773) 677-3305
 
 <http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281> bio |
<http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf> vcard |
<mailto:MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> email |  <http://www.winston.com/>
www.winston.com
 
 


 




 

 

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:07 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Issue III

 

Since we are in an information gathering phase of our work, we should leave
the use cases open for public comment. If we decide to recommend partial
bulk transfers, we could do so without the restrictions imposed by the
NueLevel Registry Service (?by means of a stock or asset purchase, merger or
similar transaction?). This would permit registrars to make their own
business decisions about whether to offer partial bulk transfers to their
customers (registrants). However, voluntary bulk transfers may not be the
answer for registrants because it requires the cooperation of the losing and
gaining registrar and I do not anticipate that losing registrars will be
easily motivated to participate. In the information gathering phase, can we
open for discussion, partial bulk transfers that do not require losing
registrar cooperation? This would be a great help for owners of domain
portfolios (registrants) especially those who frequently acquire domains by
purchasing portfolios or business acquisition.

 

Completely separate from the bulk transfers issue, the collective primary
purpose of all of the inter-registrar PDPs is to make registrar transfers
easier and more dependable for registrants without sacrificing security.
There are many complaints by registrants that some registrars make it
tedious and difficult to transfer out. It may be outside the scope of this
workgroup, but another work group (C) will soon deal with unlocking domains.
This issue should be expanded to easily obtained authorization codes because
unlocking domains and providing auth codes are two required tasks for
inter-registrar transfers that losing registrars can use to make transfers
extremely tedious.

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

Internet Commerce Association <http://www.internetcommerce.org/> 

+1. 202 657 4570


The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore,
if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading
it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
the author.
****************************************************************************
**
Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and
cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.