Re: [ga] Proposed Transfers Policy

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all assembly members,

  I think that what you are talking about here Danny is "Lock-in"
on the part of the loosing registrar.  This would seem obvious that
the Registrant has no say in where his/her Domain Name is to
reside.  That would be a dangerous situation that will no doubt
lead to legal filings that could, and likely would not be favorable
to the loosing registrar, and have other perhaps more damaging
impact on the Registrar industry as well as the ICANN staff.

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Dan,
>
> Please convey the following sentiments to the Transfers TF:
>
> The Registrar Constituency has proposed amending current contract language by
> adding one additional instance when a requested change of sponsoring
> Registrar may be denied, such instance referencing the circumstances
> described in the Registrar Transfer Statement of Best Practices document
> cited at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00059.doc
>
> These circumstances are predicated upon Losing Registrar arriving at a
> determination that the Gaining Registrar has not appropriately implemented
> the processes contemplated by this document.  Allowing the denial of transfer
> to rest solely upon a determination made by the Losing Registrar exposes the
> registrant to an unacceptable risk factor, as his rights to a decision free
> from arbitrary and capricious action are not guaranteed by this process.
>
> The argument has been put forth that the Losing Registrar may deny a transfer
> request only when either of the following conditions are satisfied:  it
> receives an express objection from a Registered Name holder or an individual
> who has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name Holder, or
> the Gaining Registrar fails to comply with the minimum standards and
> practices contemplated by this document and/or the relevant Registry
> Agreement.
>
> Such minimum standards call for "a written or electronic copy of reliable
> evidence of authorization by the Registered Name holder or an individual who
> has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registered Name holder."
> Nowhere in this document is apparent authority defined, and evidence of
> authorization, either written or electronic, is subject to dispute based
> solely on Losing Registrar's reasons (including allegations of suspicious
> transaction patterns) and determination.
>
> While both Gaining and Losing registrars are imbued with many rights in this
> process, there are no rights to review or appeal accorded to the registrant.
>
> Further, if the Gaining Registrar fails to respond to the request from the
> Losing Registrar, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future
> transfer requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the Gaining
> Registrar can provide the Losing Registrar with a copy of the FOA as set
> forth in the Transfers document.  This places all other such registrants at
> risk of a denial of transfer solely based upon the failure of registrars to
> abide by their own best practices, again with no right of appeal.
>
> In similar fashion, if the Gaining Registrar provides evidence of compliance
> not consistent with the minimum standards and processes contemplated by this
> document, the Losing Registrar may choose not to honor all future transfer
> requests from the Gaining Registrar until such time that the Gaining
> Registrar can satisfy the Losing Registrar that they have adopted the minimum
> standards and processes contemplated by this document.  Once more, this
> unacceptably places a potentially large class of registrants at the mercy of
> the unappealable decisions of Losing Registrars without due process
> provisions.
>
> The rights of registrants have not been considered by this document as
> tendered by the Registrars.  In addition to these concerns, registrants need
> to be mindful of the possibility of capricious use of registrar lock
> processes that have not been contemplated by this document.  There are no
> penalties proposed for a registrar failure to comply with the terms of the
> document, either monetary or by way of disaccreditation.  A contract without
> enforcement provisions does not suit the needs of the registrant community
> that must be protected from the continued prospect of registrar abuse.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html