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

["Michael Collins" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi James,

 

I think that âregistrant-initiatedâ is a little confusing. It would seem to 
exclude registrars voluntarily offering a service to customers (registrants). I 
have agreed with you that we should not impose a policy requiring registrars to 
offer bulk transfers to customers, but want to be careful that we do not 
prohibit it.

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

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

+1. 202 657 4570

+1. 407 242 9009 mobile

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:36 PM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III

 

Mike:

I think you've hit on a good idea in your last paragraph.  What if we 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?

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."

Thoughts?  If there is a consensus on this, then I will volunteer to put some 
wording together in the Wiki.

J.





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, August 27, 2008 10:16 am
To: "Trachtenberg, Marc H." <MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Glen
de Saint GÃry'" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>


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 
><http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281> &itemID=15281>bio 
>| 
><http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf>vcard 
>| <mailto:MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx 
><https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose> >email | www.winston.com
>
>
>[]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx 
><https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose> ] On Behalf Of Glen de 
>Saint GÃry
>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 (âby means of a stock or asset 
>purchase, merger or similar transactionâ). 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.
>