Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

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

This is not a productive conversation. As Jeff pointed out, substantive
input on the product is required. But given your penchant for defending the
sometimes illogical actions of your former employer and the incumbent
monopolist, one quick last stab at it from my end.

> "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?"

There is no logic to the above statement. If Apparent Authority does not
exist, it cannot be seen to increase fraudulent behavior. Further, we have
heard many times that the primary problem that needs to be solved is that of
registrars gaming the system (n'ack with out notice etc.), not deceptive
marketing. There is demonstrable community support for the concept and
quantifiable support in the form of current dynamics. Lastly, it is beyond
the scope of the DNSO to design a policy to regulate the marketing tactics
of third parties - especially those not under contract with ICANN.

> 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?

The Task Force has consulted with this party *several* times. The fact that
the privileges I suggest can be obtained when a domain name is renewed or
activated through the registration agreement seemed to be a reasonable
compromise between security and portability.

> 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

As a registrar, I completely fail to see how this is a reasonable statement.
We have asked for specific demonstrations of this comment, but we have yet
to see them.

> 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

Our efforts were widely promoted throughout the GA and the constituencies -
in other words, throughout the DNSO where this type of work is to be
conducted. We really tried to leave it to the various members to decide if
they wanted to participate or not.

> later report is a sham.   As to your remark regarding other
"constituencies"
> representing the users... that is just pure BS.

Very productive and substantive, bravo.

> 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


No, I expect participants in the DNSO to take advantage of the two-way
street that the TF has set up. For instance, I have published numerous
interim drafts to my constituency over the last few months. There should be
no surprises for anyone here. Of course, your mileage may vary depending on
the constituency, forum and individual interest.

> 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.

I keep hearing this from Verisign and Register.com, but I'm not seeing it be
demonstrated. One would think that for two organizations with their business
models at stake that they would be more specific in describing what their
concerns were. I find it interesting that Verisign, when asked about their
specific objections in Shanghai, declined to elaborate on the record. We can
only listen to those that speak Danny.

> 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

These parties have been intimately involved at every step of the way and
there is no reason why they could not have developed their own set of
recommendations at any point over the last two years - had they chosen to do
so. The final record will document all contributions, or lack thereof.

Thanks,


                     -rwr




Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard



----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <ross@tucows.com>; <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <mcade@att.com>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: 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-IS
P
> 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