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

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

> Hi Ross,
>
> Unforunatly, like many Registrant's I can only jump on occasion. My ideas
> and
> limited time are all I can contribute. Would love a summary off-list of
the
> existing proposals, if availble (Maybe a link to an article?).

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html

>
> Yet, for us the issue of WHO does transfer validations is 80/20 question.
> Move
> this to my agent and you've solved 80% of the problem! The rest may be
give
> and take details. Also, it's important not to let NSI's behavior be a
> distraction. A good policy with compel them to behave in the best interest
> of
> the Registrant.

But what you forget is that the Gaining registrar is a representative of the
registrant. The transfer issue is not about hijackings - some may choose to
paint it as such, but the core of the problem are those registrars that
ignore the wishes of the registrant. Further to this, the IRDX document very
clearly spells out how and to whom verification must be obtained prior to a
transfer request being filed.

> Few recognize that NSI's double-check proceedure is really for the
> protection
> of the Registrant -- given today's crazy system.

With all due respect, this is a position adopted by VRSN to draw attention
away from the fact that they are reacting to the effects of healthy
competitive. This reaction was necessary because they are failing to compete
in a number of ways. The easiest way for them to stop the bleeding to other
registrars was to simply not let customers leave. Their reaction to this
economic imperative is, at best an unintended benefit, and at worst, an
anti-competitive move made strictly with the intent of disrupting the
business' of their competition and limiting the free market rights of tens
of thousands of registrants.

As you mention, "Thief's, of course, use NSI's back-door fax process to
avoid being detected.". A default n'ack policy does not solve this reality.
Given that VRSN is a world-leader in trust services, one would think that
this would be a trivial exercise for them to solve. They haven't - and
instead, have forced tens of thousands of registrants to suffer in turn.



> Neither Bulk nor Tucows had -- be default -- any
> communication
> to the Registrant when a domain was stolen! I don't actually know if other
> domains have been stolen of my accounts.
>

I can't speak for Bulk, but our clients receive notice of any transfer
requests that we receive.

> As to recovery, Subscriber Rights are essential. Without them we are faced
> with a cost prohibitive "court intervention." If anyone hsn't seen the
> "Impvle
> Propoals for Subscriber Rights it is now posted on WWW.EVIL.BIZ.
>

Responsible use of registrar lock as well as the current "Redemption Grace
Period" proposal appropriately address what you are trying to solve. To
restrict the portability of domains because of the bad security practices of
a precious few registrars is something that I can't imagine would be well
received by the tens of thousands of other registrants that do have a vested
interest in true registrar to registrar portability.


                       -rwr




"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
it?" -- Albert Einstein

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal
Old Skool DNS Address: http://www.byte.org/heathrow

--
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