Ken,
We decided that this was a better way to go, providing the transferee a new
two year period with the new registrar. We nixed the idea of a transfer fee
and also decided that the costs of refunding prorated amounts could cost
more than the amount refunded.
See you in Singapore.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 1999 1:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] NSI's Response to ICANN's Proposed Guidelines
>
> hello chuck..
>
> am on a plane to singapore and its 3am but looked over nsi proposal for
> portability and found it to be very punative. the idea of requiring
> a 2 year payment on domain transfers injects an unfair economic advantage
> to
> any existing registrar as well as providing significant windfall profits
> for
> the registry.
>
> talking about competition and fostering an environment where we are all on
> a
> level playing field appear here to be two different things as presented in
> this NSI proposal.
>
> to me this is not at all in the "spirit" of the transition agreement
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 1:16 PM
> Subject: [IFWP] NSI's Response to ICANN's Proposed Guidelines
>
>
> >Network Solutions' response of ICANN's request for comments
> >regarding its proposed guidelines for registrar
> >accreditation can be found at NSI's web site at
> >http://www.netsol.com/policy/icann299/guideline-comments.htm
> >l
> >
> >Chuck Gomes
> >Vice President, Customer Programs
> >Network Solutions, Inc.
> >
> >
> >
