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

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

> to label the auDA solution that effectively protects the registrant
community
> from abusive transfer practices as "silly" is less-than-constructive.  Is
> there any reason that you can't build upon their initiative in a manner
which
> adds to their "tree-bark" approach?   You have already indicated that the
FOA
> may take either a physical or electronic form and that IDRX processes
should
> be automated.  To minimize the risk to the registrant that automated
> processes can pose, why not proceed along the lines of auDA's domain name
PIN
> approach as a verification tool?   Are there any reasons that you have for
> objecting to this approach?


You've neither shown that the processes they've adopted protect the
registrant community or that the IRDX proposal isn't complementary to the
auda model.

In fact, a close study of the Registrar Constituency position on the matter
(described in detail in the IRDX document) that the processes are agnostic
as to the technical and operational models adopted by the registrar. ie - it
works equally well with RRP (no pin) as it does with EPP (pin)...

Forcing registrants in India to communicate *only on paper* with a registrar
in England is silly.

Lastly, despite your implications, this whole effort is about promoting
registrant protection by guaranteeing safe and effective domain name
portability. Painting these efforts as being somehow anti-consumer, is also
silly.

-rwr

PS - is there any reason that this is cc'ed to the universe?


--
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