Re: [nc-transfer] draft resolution on transfers

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

> Lastly, as a member of the gTLD Registry Consitituency, I have objections
to
> the substance of the resolution.

The substance of? Not to be pedantic, but should are you saying that
Verisign is opposed to the essence of the resolution or, with specifics
within the resolution that if amended would allow Verisign to withdraw their
objection?


> 1.   As others have stated and as you have acknowledged, the term
"apparent
> authority" remains undefined.  As a Registry representative, I can tell
you
> from interactions with my customers that there is widespread disagreement
on
> this issue, and to suggest that this is something that can be easily
worked
> out later is very problematic.  This is an integral part of the transfer
> issue and should not be treated lightly.

Now this is starting to sound like work...;)

As I mentioned in my message earlier this week
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00022.html), Apparent
Authority is a term of law. The Registrar Constituency also recognizes that
there are those that feel that this should be included, for the sake of
clarity, in the relevant agreements. The real question is what real question
being asked is: is it "what is apparent authority?" or "who has apparent
authority?" - or both? I suspect that those asking the former question are
actually trying to find an answer to the latter.

>
> 2.  The specific and limited number of reasons for which a losing
registrar
> can n'ack a request, according to this proposal, does not allow for every
> situation and accordingly is detrimental to the registrant.

This is incorrect actually. The proposal removes most of the responsibility
for ack or n'ack and places it in the hands of the registrant. Further,
there is a secondary safeguard that specifically allows the Losing Registrar
to n'ack requests in very specific and defined circumstances. The proposal
is weighty, but please take the time to fully understand the nuances that
provide the registrant with a degree of control and benefit not found in the
current arrangements.

> Presently, the
> RRA contains a list of reasons for which a losing registrar MAY n'ack, but
> it does not purport to be an exhaustive list and such, it leaves room
> unusual circumstances that may arise.  It's important to note that there
is
> an underlying presumption of good faith and fair dealing among registrars
> and because of that such circumstances are able to be worked out (for the
> most part) while still in keeping with the terms of the agreement.  This
> proposal however, would take that away.

This is also incorrect as the proposal specifically states how registrars
need to work together to resolve wrinkles in the process to the benefit of
the registrant. The processes as described in the proposal largely do away
with the need for an exhaustive list of proscribed cirumstances in which the
Losing Registrar may n'ack because of the direct involvement of the
Registrant on a number of levels.

>
> I have dealt with a number of cases of "domain hijacking", and in fact
just
> learned of a new one this week.  This is one type of situation where the
> registrant may not be protected by the registrars' proposal and I would
> offer that there are probably many others.

This discussion is not about hijacking. But since Verisign brings it up, the
resolution that has been tabled would bring into effect a number of
mechanisms by which hijackings would more easily be remedied than they are
under the current policy structure. Also, might I recommend, very seriously,
that the gTLD Registry Constituency and the Registrar Constituency initiate
a dialogue concerning hijackings in order that we may both better understand
the true landscape and start to identify the long term policy strategy that
will minimize or eliminate fraudulent actions of this nature. If the
Registries have the will, I will do my best ensure that the Registrars come
to the table.


>
> 3.  Section 5.k.11 of the registrars' paper defines an acceptable type of
> electronic "authorization" as being a "copy of the electronic
communication
> sent TO the Registered Name Holder...in reply to or confirming the initial
> domain name transfer request".   This is in direct contradiction to the
> terms of the current policy which requires that express authorization must
> be FROM the registrant or one having apparent authority.  To allow
otherwise
> could be devastating for many unsuspecting registrants, not to mention
very
> difficult for a Registry, as party to the agreement, to enforce.

This is also a misinterpretation of the proposal. The section you quote from
describes the documentation that a registrar must store in support of a
transfer transaction. This section specifically states that not only must
the registrar store information received from the registrant in support of
the transaction, but also information sent to the registrant in support of
the transaction. This, therefore, is not a contradiction, but an extension
of the existing policy.

I hope that this has been useful. Let's make sure that we continuee with
this dialogue. The Registrar Constituency is happy to undertake whatever
steps are required to ensure that the community has a full understanding of
what our basic proposition is and how we can work together to ensure that
the basic rights of the registrant community are protected and where
appropriate, extended.

Thanks,

-rwr