<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III
- To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'James M. Bladel'" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'IRTP-A '" <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: Issue III
- From: "Michael Collins" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:23:11 -0400
The advantages of partial bulk transfer (if created) enjoyed by registrars
might be enjoyed by registrars' customers. At the risk of repeating myself,
we should make sure that GoDaddy and others are able to use partial bulk
transfer to provide new services to its customers if it chooses. I am not
suggesting that we require registrars to offer any new service nor that
registrants should somehow be able to obtain a bulk transfer without a
registrar providing the service.
However, to Mike R's BIG point. Despite what seemed like clear IRTP rules,
when they were written, some registrars are still making it very difficult
to transfer out. Registrars current bulk transfer services, including
GoDaddy's, are hampered if obtaining authorization codes or unlocking
domains at losing registrar is difficult or tedious. Complaints about this
problem is probably the biggest reason for the several IRTP PDPs. Let us
remember this underlying dissatisfaction with the current process as we
discuss every issue.
Best regards,
Michael Collins
<http://www.internetcommerce.org/> Internet Commerce Association
+1. 202 657 4570
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|