<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:35:37 -0700
<html><body><font style="" color="#000000"><font size="2"><font
style="font-family: verdana,geneva;" face="verdana,geneva">Mike:<br><br>I think
you've hit on a good idea in your last paragraph. What if we
</font></font></font>propose to the group that the scope of Issue III be
narrowed to exclude "registrant-initiated" transactions, and focus our
definitions on only those initiated by registrars?<br><br>In fact, I think Paul
pointed out in an earlier session that this is implied by the wording of the
question when it states "between registrars."<br><br>Thoughts? If there
is a consensus on this, then I will volunteer to put some wording together in
the Wiki.<br><br>J.<br><br><br>
<blockquote webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px;
padding-left: 8px;">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III<br>
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx><br>
Date: Wed, August 27, 2008 10:16 am<br>
To: "Trachtenberg, Marc H." <MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Glen<br>
de Saint Géry'" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, <br>
"Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx><br>
<br>
<br>
Yep, I agree. My position on transfers is that <br>
I'd like a way for registrants to <br>
consistently/securely move a group of names from <br>
one registrar to another in a group, rather than <br>
one at a time (which is an inconvenience that <br>
losing registrars sometimes use as a barrier to <br>
losing domains). Here are places where I see some wiggle room;<br>
<br>
- I agree that it's not fair that registrants get <br>
to do this "for free" -- if there's a way to <br>
impose a fair fee structure, I'd support it.<br>
<br>
- One of the problems that crops up for <br>
registrants is that renewal dates are scattered <br>
across the year -- it would be nifty if there was <br>
some way to some kind of pro-rated refund of <br>
registration-fees from the losing registrar. I <br>
know, a logistical nightmare, but a fella can <br>
dream. And maybe this could be implemented over <br>
some period of time to limit impact on registrar operations.<br>
<br>
- A hybrid approach to this could be to provide a <br>
mechanism whereby a registrant could "queue up" a <br>
group of domains for an automated transfer at renewal time.<br>
<br>
- At any rate, it may be that I'm trying to <br>
shoehorn too much into "partial bulk <br>
transfers". Might it make sense to set up *two* <br>
kinds of partial bulk transfers, one for <br>
registrar-initiated ones and another for <br>
registrant-initiated ones? That way we could <br>
fashion the rules to match the circumstances better.<br>
<br>
mikey<br>
<br>
At 11:51 AM 8/26/2008, Trachtenberg, Marc H. wrote:<br>
>I think first we need to define "partial-bulk <br>
>transfer." In other words, do we mean only <br>
>registrar-initiated transfers? How many domain <br>
>names are the minimum for a "partial-bulk <br>
>transfer"? Are these transfers that are not treated as renewals?<br>
><br>
><br>
>Marc H. Trachtenberg<br>
><br>
>Winston & Strawn LLP<br>
>35 West Wacker Drive<br>
>Chicago, IL 60601-9703<br>
>T: +1 (312) 558-7964<br>
>F: +1 (312) 558-5700<br>
>C: +1 (773) 677-3305<br>
><br>
><<a
href="http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281";
target="_blank"
mce_href="http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281";>http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281</a>>bio
<br>
>| <br>
><<a href="http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf";
target="_blank"
mce_href="http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf";>http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf</a>>vcard
<br>
>| <<a onclick="return
true;Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=MTrachtenberg%40winston.com');
return false;" href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose";
mce_href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose";>mailto:MTrachtenberg<b></b>@winston.com</a>>email
| <a href="http://www.winston.com"; target="_blank"
mce_href="http://www.winston.com";>www.winston.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
>[]<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>----------<br>
>From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx <br>
>[<a onclick="return
true;Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');
return false;" href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose";
mce_href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08<b></b>@icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry<br>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:07 AM<br>
>To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx<br>
>Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Issue III<br>
><br>
><br>
>Since we are in an information gathering phase <br>
>of our work, we should leave the use cases open <br>
>for public comment. If we decide to recommend <br>
>partial bulk transfers, we could do so without <br>
>the restrictions imposed by the NueLevel <br>
>Registry Service (…by means of a stock or asset <br>
>purchase, merger or similar transaction…). This <br>
>would permit registrars to make their own <br>
>business decisions about whether to offer <br>
>partial bulk transfers to their customers <br>
>(registrants). However, voluntary bulk transfers <br>
>may not be the answer for registrants because it <br>
>requires the cooperation of the losing and <br>
>gaining registrar and I do not anticipate that <br>
>losing registrars will be easily motivated to <br>
>participate. In the information gathering phase, <br>
>can we open for discussion, partial bulk <br>
>transfers that do not require losing registrar <br>
>cooperation? This would be a great help for <br>
>owners of domain portfolios (registrants) <br>
>especially those who frequently acquire domains <br>
>by purchasing portfolios or business acquisition.<br>
><br>
>Completely separate from the bulk transfers <br>
>issue, the collective primary purpose of all of <br>
>the inter-registrar PDPs is to make registrar <br>
>transfers easier and more dependable for <br>
>registrants without sacrificing security. There <br>
>are many complaints by registrants that some <br>
>registrars make it tedious and difficult to <br>
>transfer out. It may be outside the scope of <br>
>this workgroup, but another work group (C) will <br>
>soon deal with unlocking domains. This issue <br>
>should be expanded to easily obtained <br>
>authorization codes because unlocking domains <br>
>and providing auth codes are two required tasks <br>
>for inter-registrar transfers that losing <br>
>registrars can use to make transfers extremely tedious.<br>
><br>
>Best regards,<br>
>Michael Collins<br>
><<a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/"; target="_blank"
mce_href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/";>http://www.internetcommerce.org/</a>>Internet
Commerce Association<br>
>+1. 202 657 4570<br>
><br>
><br>
>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com"; target="_blank"
mce_href="http://www.avg.com";>http://www.avg.com</a><br>
>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1635 <br>
>- Release Date: 8/26/2008 7:29 AM<br>
>The contents of this message may be privileged <br>
>and confidential. Therefore, if this message has <br>
>been received in error, please delete it without <br>
>reading it. Your receipt of this message is not <br>
>intended to waive any applicable privilege. <br>
>Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the
author.<br>
>******************************************************************************<br>
>Any tax advice contained in this email was not <br>
>intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you <br>
>(or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under <br>
>the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|