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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yep, I agree.  My position on transfers is that 
I'd like a way for registrants to 
consistently/securely move a group of names from 
one registrar to another in a group, rather than 
one at a time (which is an inconvenience that 
losing registrars sometimes use as a barrier to 
losing domains).   Here are places where I see some wiggle room;
- I agree that it's not fair that registrants get 
to do this "for free" -- if there's a way to 
impose a fair fee structure, I'd support it.
- One of the problems that crops up for 
registrants is that renewal dates are scattered 
across the year -- it would be nifty if there was 
some way to some kind of pro-rated refund of 
registration-fees from the losing registrar.  I 
know, a logistical nightmare, but a fella can 
dream.  And maybe this could be implemented over 
some period of time to limit impact on registrar operations.
- A hybrid approach to this could be to provide a 
mechanism whereby a registrant could "queue up" a 
group of domains for an automated transfer at renewal time.
- At any rate, it may be that I'm trying to 
shoehorn too much into "partial bulk 
transfers".  Might it make sense to set up *two* 
kinds of partial bulk transfers, one for 
registrar-initiated ones and another for 
registrant-initiated ones?   That way we could 
fashion the rules to match the circumstances better.
mikey

At 11:51 AM 8/26/2008, Trachtenberg, Marc H. wrote:
> I think first we need to define "partial-bulk 
> transfer."  In other words, do we mean only 
> registrar-initiated transfers?  How many domain 
> names are the minimum for a "partial-bulk 
> transfer"?  Are these transfers that are not treated as renewals?
>
> 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 | 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
> <http://www.internetcommerce.org/>Internet Commerce Association
> +1. 202 657 4570
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1635 
> - Release Date: 8/26/2008 7:29 AM
> 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.