Re: [ga] Ignoring the Rules

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

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