Hello Michael,

> >
> 
> The transfer policy that was made public clearly stated that 
> it would be a
> new record and 2 years <renewal> would have to also be 
> attached. The EPP
> <transfer> has been made into <delete-register> function.
> 

I think the disconnect is between policy language and technical language.
The protocol was developed to handle efficiently the different policy
requirements.
What I stated earlier is what would happen at the technical level to meet
the policy.

> 
> Also we are not talking about 1 month and 6 month terms 
> here... this is
> highly irrevelant, as the time that it would/should take to 
> implement this
> the registry will be well under way and it will be all to late and to
> little... not to say that it's a bad idea.. need to think 
> about that one..
> 

It is a relatively simple change at the registry (the protocol was designed
to allow flexibility here), and if Ian Johnston is right could be a
relatively easy policy change (it seems that a maximum of 2 years was set by
the policy panel, and that the minimum could be selected).  I would be happy
with moving to 1 year minimum as a first step (which is consistent with
.com).

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin