Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info

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

Actually Danny, it is not our language. It was proposed language that has
never been adopted, informally or otherwise, by the constituency. It has no
official status and would definitely not meet the test of consensus as it
currently stands.

As to your specific policy proposal, I can't speak for the constituency, but
I/we/Tucows would be interested in seeing more concrete proposals that might
be considered by the Constituency and the DNSO. As it stands however, there
are several pressing policy issues that take precedence over new
initiatives, so getting air time might be difficult at this juncture.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Reseller hiding WHOIS info


William,

There was a time when the registrar community attempted to put forth a "Code
of Conduct" document, in which the very first point stated:

1.  Resolution of Customer Grievances
Registrars and their agents should endeavor to resolve customer complaints
in
an expeditious and courteous manner. Registrars and their agents are
expected
to furnish each registrant with contact information for the registrar’s
and
agent's customer support personnel, to include information such as, phone
number, fax number, e-mail address or link to home page.  Inclusion of such
information in registrar’s registration agreement or in a confirming
e-mail
sent to registrants would normally satisfy this requirement.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00003.doc

It is certainly possible for the DNSO to use such language as the basis for
a
"consensus policy" to govern the activities of both registrars and their
agents (and as the registrars themselves have no "issue" with this point (it
is after all their own language)), I see no reason not to press forward with
this type of consumer protection initiative through the ICANN process.

As to your other point, if ENOM is the registrar in this case, perhaps ICANN
should be investigating why this registrar is seemingly not in compliance
with 3.3.1.7 of the RAA...  And perhaps we should also be considering
establishing sanctions for those registrars that violate the RAA (to the
same
degree that we have a sanctions program for the registries).
--
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@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