Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I think we're diving down into semantic extremely quickly (I think) - to
circle back, why is AA "a bad thing" and what is the counter-proposal that
replaces it with a "good thing"? Not being a lawyer, perhaps I'm failing to
grasp the significance of some small nuance here, and if that is the case, I
will certainly defer. *But*, I still believe that the draft that is on the
table is pretty responsible with the exception of the EA definition. And, as
much as I would like to continue this discussion, I fail to see where it
solves the portability issue that has been hanging around for the last
umpteen months.

The fact is that (tens of thousands of) registrants that *have been validly
identified as being legitimately representative of the interests of the
registrant* are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to move domain
names away from a registrar to one that better suits their taste. It is
certainly my view that this is the complete scope of the problem that must
be fixed - and, no one to date has been able to convincingly demonstrate
otherwise.

So, if this is the case, then why have we spent over a year on an issue
(elapsed DNSO time, not elapsed NC time) that can be very simply fixed by
removing the loophole in the contract that allows precious few registrars to
play games and wreak havoc on their registrants?

Another challenge for the GA - read the registrar constituency proposal that
has been on the table since October. (you can find it here
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html). If the
consensus is that it sucks and needs to be scrapped and/or significantly
modified, or even slightly improved - then let's discuss that. If this
doesn't sound reasonable, then produce a counter-proposal and get it into
Dan's hands. Individual proposals carry just as much weight as those
generated by groups at this point - the key is to get to the ideas, not
debate which "idea" has more support*. The alternative to an effective DNSO
consensus policy process determining what happens on this issue is that the
registrars take the proposal off the table, abandon the DNSO consensus
policy process and incorporate the current proposal into a binding Code of
Conduct.

I've pulled everyone off the cc list, for the simple reason that this
message is directed at the DNSO, not at anyone one in particular (including
Dan to whom sparked this response)...

-rwr

*That part comes soon enough.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
<roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
<RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>; <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
<crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
<james.love@cptech.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion


> To be more precise...that gets you only part of the way. There is
> another party to the transaction who may or may not be bound by this.
> and the 'may or may not'...could vary a lot depending on the fact
> pattern.
>
> "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> >
> > To be more precise (and perhaps less bold ;) Registrars and Registries
have
> > agreed to the terms under which transfers will be conducted according to
the
> > laws in the jurisdictions that I mentioned. Everything else flows from
> > there.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> > <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>; <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> > <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> > <james.love@cptech.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> >
> > > actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed by one
> > > party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making such bold
> > > assertions please?
> > >
> > > agreement on the rest.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is an international environment we are dealing with here
folks.
> > A
> > > > > good chunk of the world does not even operate under common
law...so
> > > > > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable. there are
> > > > > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and statute, and
> > caselaw
> > > > > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely
different.
> > > >
> > > > Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant jurisdiction is
> > > > Virginia or Delaware.
> > > >
> > > > > I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not focus on
coming
> > up
> > > > > with a definition we all want to see inserted into contractual
terms
> > > > > like the agreements between registrant and registrar, etc?
> > > >
> > > > I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem being,
> > despite
> > > > the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a lot of
drafting
> > > > going on. The core of a successful task force will always be
competing
> > > > proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing
effective
> > can
> > > > really be accomplished.
> > > >
> > > > I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as you have
> > described
> > > > Dan. The TF needs this.
> > > >
> > > > -rwr
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan Steinberg
> > >
> > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> --
> 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
>


--
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