[ga] Registrars: on Transfers & Whois Data mining

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

FYI:  The registrar executive committee has approved the following letter 
(posted at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02798.html )


Dear Stuart and Vint:

As the Board continues its Herculean task in connection with the ICANN
Evolution and Reform process, I would respectfully request that the ICANN
Board and staff allocate time and resources for a public discussion of
inter-registrar transfers ("transfers") and the mining of registrar Whois
data during the upcoming Shanghai meeting.

The issue of transfers is the foundation upon which domain name portability
is based, and the mechanism by which consumers are able to chose their
registrar of record. Approximately one year ago, I sent to the you and the
Board a letter from the Registrar Constituency summarizing this problem, see
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/palage-to-lynn-16aug01.htm. The
constituency first attempted to resolve this matter in a timely fashion as a
contract interpretation over what constituted "apparent authority".
Unfortunately, this issue fell prey to the short comings of the current
ICANN process and has failed to be resolved in a timely manner.

I continue to get complaints from registrars and their customers over the
frustration in their inability to effectuate registrar transfers. This
issues has been further complicated by some registrars that are allegedly
refusing to provide registrants with the necessary Authorization Code in
connection with EPP registries (Afilias and NeuLevel). The fact that the
Names Council's Transfer Task Force has yet to address the matter for which
it is named, while instead tackling unrelated issues such as the WLS and the
Redemption Grace Period, is why the ICANN Board and staff are needed to
intercede and resolve this issue which is directly impacting those parties
with which ICANN has contractual relationships.

Another issue that has recently emerged is the mining of registrar's whois
databases. Upon information and belief this tortuous activity has resulted
in questionable marketing practices and an influx of Spam. In light of
recent national governmental attempts to limit Spam and protect users'
privacy, I believe that this issue should be made a topic for public debate
in Shanghai.

If the ICANN Board and staff can confirm that these two issues will be the
subject of a public forum in Shanghai, I will take the necessary steps with
the registrar constituency to prepare documents and position papers to
properly frame and expedite public discussion.

A third issue that registrars find important and which they will attempt to
address through our representative Bruce Tonkin on the GNSO Task Force, is
the need for contracting parties with ICANN to resolve/clarify contractual
issues in a timely fashion. The Registrar Constituency is not persuaded that
the current proposals for the reform of the DNSO are adequate to this task,
and think that ICANN should have a better means for dealing with contractual
interpretation and enforcement. The Registrar Constituency continues to
support the evolution and reform process underway, and believes that this
issue can be incorporated into the current Blueprint document.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter and I eagerly await
confirmation of my request. If you feel that this email is of value to the
rest of the board I would respectfully request that you forward it to them.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
Chair of the Registrar Constituency,
on behalf of the Registrar Constituency
--
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