<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules
Ross,
You write: "AA (apparent authority) no longer exists, therefore the concern
is moot."
Just because a few members of the task force have recommended that the
concept of AA be ditched, this does not equate to the concern necessarily
being moot. If this were the case, then why did a group of registrars deem
it necessary to re-visit the issue? Their comment follows:
"The current proposal creates an incentive for gaining registrars to obtain
the customer's "apparent authority" by more avenues, possibly including
deceptive marketing practices, since it will allow for transfers without
verification of the registrant's objective manifestation of intent to
transfer. How does the proposal address the situation where "apparent
authority" is obtained by fraud or deceptive marketing? In such a case,
there is no real authority for the transfer, and auto-ACK makes it easier to
perpetrate the fraud. What if a registrar that is known to harbor fraudulent
resellers or to use deceptive marketing tactics originates a transfer
request? Again, doesn't auto-ACK simply facilitate these entities
perpetrating fraud against consumers?"
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00125.doc
Regarding how/whether an ISP/reseller can act as an agent on behalf of the
registrant (since they are not a party to the registrar/registrant contract),
you write: "Registrants can appoint agents to act on their behalf and grant
them Administrative Contact privileges which will allow the agent to
request/approve/deny a transfer. Clearly covered under the recommendations."
Let's take a look at a real-world situation often raised in discussions led
by David Wascher of IARegistry -- A Telco-ISP buys out another which causes a
mass displacement of thousands of users... the gaining Telco-ISP wishes to
cut a deal with a different registrar... under your proposal, the Telco-ISP
would have to send a letter to 10,000+ customers asking each of them to
formally grant the Telco-ISP Administrative Contact privileges in order to
effect the change. The ability for this Telco to request a transfer is where
the Apparent Authority definitions (that you consider to be moot) comes into
play. I can see this TF proposal having seriously deleterious effects upon
the IARegistry business model. Has the Task Force specifically contacted
this potentially impacted party to secure their views?
In my view the TF has shown little regard for the economic impact of their
recommendations... to quote your last message, "Might it be that supporting a
rational portability policy isn't in their economic interests?" Economic
interests are very much the operative reality. A Task Force that hasn't
given consideration to the risk/cost factors of implementing a new policy
hasn't properly done their job. In response to this concern a group of
registrars recently wrote: "The current proposal would require significant,
costly changes to Registrar and Registry systems, as well as to certain
aspects of business models and practices that have evolved over the last
year. These must be taken into account prior to making changes." I see no
evidence that the TF has taken these matters into account as the report
defers consideration of the risk/cost analysis until after the public comment
period (in contravention of the Council Rules of Procedure which make it
clear that such considerations shall be presented within the Interim Report).
You write that "the task force has specifically consulted with the needs of
the user community through a variety of outreach efforts". I disagree. An
occasional open conference call that is poorly publicized does not constitute
proper outreach. Did the TF post any messages to slashdot, notify the Better
Business Bureaus, contact representatives of the Cyberspace Association
(IDNO), the Domain Name Rights Coalition, or the Small Business
Administration offices to make users aware of your activities? Was any
effort made to contact representatives from icannatlarge or from any other
At-large structure? The record of outreach that you propose to detail in a
later report is a sham. As to your remark regarding other "constituencies"
representing the users... that is just pure BS.
Ross, it has taken the TF a full year to arrive at an Interim Report, and now
you expect that within three weeks affected parties can adequately respond by
way of the notice-and-comment provisions and table well-developed salient
counter-proposals... this is irrational and does not serve the needs of
affected parties. The process is so deficient that these parties have no
other choice but to actively oppose your efforts -- their business models are
at stake and you can't expect them to behave in any other fashion. What is
called for is to open up your perversely closed task force to these other
groups to allow them to fully participate in the decision-making process.
Give them the necessary time to present a counter-proposal with substantive
arguments or let the record show that they had no proposal to offer in lieu
of the current recommendations. There is no compelling need for a mad rush
to complete the TF work in time for an arbitrary Amsterdam deadline. Do the
right thing and extend the comment period long enough to secure the needed
commentary from all affected parties that need a certain amount of time to
formulate their thoughts... after all, it took you guys over a year just to
formulate your own set of recommendations.
Finally, as to the market behavior of the industry, I do believe that it
should be regulated but I don't believe that ICANN should function as such a
regulator. It lacks the expertise, accountability and legitimacy to function
in such a capacity. It can however, act to enforce the contracts to which it
is a party, and any new proposed policy should involve ICANN as a contracting
party charged with an enforcement responsibility.
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|