[nc-transfer] Draft "Supporting Arguments"
Please find to follow the first half of the "Supporting
Arguments" section. I have drafted it in "FAQ" format to ensure that we draw a
direct line between comments received, objections raised and questions that we
answered in the report. I believe that I have captured the substantive
objections, please review as quickly as you can and let me know if I have missed
anything.
Necessarily, the second part of this document (the hard part)
are the answers to these questions.
I'm available whenever for questions, comments
etc...
Supporting Arguments
This portion of the
Final Report is presented in “Frequently Asked Questions” format based on
inquiries and comments that the Task Force receive, informally and formally,
throughout the term of the Task Force. We believe that the implications raised
by these questions are widely held and substantively addressed by the Policy
Recommendations of the Task Force and this report. Q. It appears that
the Task Force only addressed the considerations raised by one proposal that was
put forward by the community and not others that have been presented. Doesn’t
the Task Force have a requirement to deal with all substantive proposals put
forward by the community? Q. The policy
recommendations that you have put forth don’t seem to adequately set forth
enough clarity to provide registrants, registrars and registries with the
necessary level of confidence. Shouldn’t the Task Force deal with the issue of
setting clear definition for all aspects of the transfers
process? Q. Although it was
raised numerous times, the Task Force does not make any specific recommendations
concerning the issue of “Apparent Authority” as it currently exists under the
present policy. How does this report deal with those
issues? Q. Some parties like
to “create their own policies” and we always therefore seem to end up with a
system that can be easily gamed. How does this report deal with this
issue? Q. How can “third
parties” authenticate transfers under these
recommendations? Q. Sometimes
resellers and ISPs represent the registrant. Without the notion of “Apparent
Authority” it will be impossible for these parties to authenticate a transfer.
How is this addressed in these recommendations? Q. Non-providers
need to participate in the policy development process. How did the task force
address the requirements of “users” (ie – registrants) during the formulation of
these recommendations? Q. Even when the
best policies are adhered to in the strictest manner by all participants,
sometimes things go wrong. With domain names, this might mean that a registrant
is left without the use of their domain name for a period of time. Under the
current policy, this often means that registrants have to hope for the best and
put their fate in the hands of a registrar who may or may not cooperate when it comes to
“making things right”. Does this report deal with this dynamic in a meaningful
way? Q. Some Registrars
liberally employ the “registrar_lock” function as it relates to the domain names
they register for registrants. This often means that Registrant’s *can’t*
transfer their domain name in a predictable way. Do the Task Force
recommendations consider this?
Q. How closely did
the Task Force follow the discussions that took place in various forums
throughout the DNSO and the rest of the community? Q. Doesn’t
“auto-ack” simply encourage fraudulent activity to occur? Q. Why don’t these
recommendations protect Registrants from unscrupulous marketing
practices? Q. Fraudulent
transfers pose a far greater problem than does “Registrar gaming” of the current
policies. Why weren’t fraudulent transfers more explicitly dealt
with? Q. Major registrars
are auto-nacking and they report that this has substantially reduced fraudulent
transfers Wouldn’t allowing the losing registrar to “auto-nack” have achieved
the desired results? What’s wrong with the current policy? Q. 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? Q. This proposal is
based on old thinking by the Registrar Constituency which no longer has the
support of the community. Shouldn’t the Task Force allow for more time to
explore alternatives? Q. Won’t
implementing these changes require significant alteration to the existing
contracts? Should impacted parties have an opportunity to amend or negotiate
these provisions before they are included in a contract? |