<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III
- To: "Michael Collins" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:06:31 -0700
<html><body><font style="" color="#000000"><font size="2"><font
style="font-family: verdana,geneva;" face="verdana,geneva"><font style=""
color="#000000"><font style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"
face="verdana,geneva">Mike:<br><br></font></font>Good point.<br><br>I certainly
wouldn't want to quash any future or existing services to registrants, but
wanted to leave that type of scenario outside the scope of the policy.
This shouldn't prohibit registrars from offering alternative services to their
customers.<br><br>J.<br><br></font></font></font><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: "Michael Collins" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><br>
Date: Wed, August 27, 2008 3:00 pm<br>
To: <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx><br>
<br>
<style>
#wmMessage /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
#wmMessage @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmMessage @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#wmMessage @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#wmMessage /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmMessage li.MsoNormal,
#wmMessage div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
#wmMessage a:link, #wmMessage span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessage a:visited, #wmMessage span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmMessage span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;}
#wmMessage .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}
#wmMessage @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#wmMessage div.Section1 {page:Section1;}
</style> <div class="Section1"> <div><font style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif">Hi James,<o:p></o:p></font></div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></font></div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></div> <div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></font></div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif">Michael Collins<o:p></o:p></font></div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/";
target="_blank" mce_href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/";><font style=""
color="blue">Internet Commerce Association</font></a><o:p></o:p></font></div>
<div><font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif">+1. 202 657 4570<o:p></o:p></font></div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif">+1. 407 242 9009 mobile</font><font style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></font></div> </div> <div><font
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";" color="#1f497d"
face="Calibri,sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></font></div> <div> <div
style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223)
-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium;
padding: 3pt 0in 0in;"> <div><b><font style="font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";" face="Tahoma,sans-serif"
size="2">From:</font></b><font style="font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";" face="Tahoma,sans-serif" size="2">
owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx [<a onclick="return
true;Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08%40icann.org');;
return false;" href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";
target="_blank"
mce_href="mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>James M. Bladel<br> <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 27,
2008 3:36 PM<br> <b>To:</b> Mike O'Connor<br> <b>Cc:</b>
Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx<br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE:
Issue III<o:p></o:p></font></div> </div> </div> <div><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div><font style="font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"
color="black" face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="2">Mike:<br> <br> I think you've
hit on a good idea in your last paragraph. What if we </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> <br> <o:p></o:p></div> <p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">-------- 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
GÃry'" <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";
mce_href="http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281";
target="_blank">http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=15281</a>>bio
<br> >| <br> ><<a
href="http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf";
mce_href="http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf";
target="_blank">http://www.winston.com/sitefiles/wsvcard/15281.vcf</a>>vcard
<br> >| <<a href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose";
target="_blank"
mce_href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose";>mailto:MTrachtenberg@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>email
| <a href="http://www.winston.com"; mce_href="http://www.winston.com";
target="_blank">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
href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose"; target="_blank"
mce_href="https://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose";>mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
On Behalf Of Glen de Saint GÃry<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 (Âby means of a stock or asset <br>
>purchase, merger or similar transactionÂ). 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/";
mce_href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/";
target="_blank">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";
mce_href="http://www.avg.com"; target="_blank">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> <o:p></o:p></p> </div>
</blockquote></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|