RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavint@directi.com>]

Dear Ross,

firstly you are wrong here. The methods I have suggested are not to please
Register.com or Verisign.com. Frankly, I DONT CARE ABOUT THEM (no offence
intended) - I CARE about my comfort.

Let me assure you i have no personal direct issues with OpenSRS. I think
your trf process is fine. Admin contact approval is a good method, one that
we also would use. However just because TUCOWS follows the perfect method
does not mean everyone of the other 75 registrars will. Truly speaking Ross,
dont you agree that even a consensus amongst all of us of a methodology will
not solve the issue. Because a consensus amongst us is not legally binding,
any registrar may choose to change the process to his own will. In that
sense I believe register.com to a certain extent may not be justified in
sending their promo mail alongwith the ACK mail, however they are not doing
anything legally wrong.

If however the agreement itself defined in clear terms the exact process and
all the fall back procedures then there would be no scope for a registrar to
play mischief. Moreover it would guarantee to me that irrespective of the
registar whether they are big or small, would have to abide by the same
process, thus i would be comfortable and sleep at nights that the
probability of a domain hijacking is now far lesser

additonally a standard process would also eliminate issues that are
currently going on between register.com, tucows or any other parties, in
that it would define the legal boundaries for both the losing and the
gaining registrar.

Ross, I agree that we need to better the process, all I am saying is this
entire discussionsis great. we all have identified a common issue, we are
allmoving towards solving it. It will be difficult to achieve such a wave
again. If we want to solve it and be atpeace....LETS SOLVE IT COMPLETELY AND
NOT PARTIALLY.


MICHAEL: i know you are vacationing...... however can we add whatever
suggestions we all have put forth to the straw poll, in order to get a
better perspective on the entire debate. I believe the straw poll questions
are as follows

1. Since gaining Registrar has obtained and retained proof of transfer
request, should the losing Registrar should only NAC the request if
explicitly requested by the Registrant.  Yes__ No__

2. Should a standardized transfer authorization template be
required by all
Registrars to verify a transfer request? Yes__ No__

3. Should Registrars accept notarized hard copy transfer requests as proof
of authorization? Yes__ No__

4. Is the reconfirmation / autoNAKing process that a select few Registrars
currently enforce (i.e. requiring a Registrant to acknowledge a Registrar
transfer request for a second time) an acceptable and fair
practice for the Internet community in general?  Yes__ No__

ADD TO THESE if everyone is ok with it

- How many registrars think a fax authorisation from the registrant is ok
for a transfer approval

- Also the 4th question should be separated into the following 2 questions

1. How many registrars think that if a formal process is defined for
approval to be taken by  a gaining registrar, then the losing registrar
should also send a request for approval

2. How many registrars think that if a losing registrar sends out a request
for auth to their customers, silence should be treated as a NACK

This also brings in one more IMPORTANT QUESTION

3. If a losing registrar be allowed to send a request for auth to their
customer, how many registrars think there should be a STANDARD format of
such a request (this would prevent the confusion with regards to Registrars
attaching PROMO mails in the email and diluting the purpose of the
communication)

I BELIEVE THE ABV QUESTIONS ARE important to the problem at hand, and will
help formulate the correct decision

Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
CEO
Directi
----------------------------
91-22-6372982/3276/0650/3332
http://www.directi.com
----------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 6:24 PM
> To: Bhavin Turakhia; Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
>
>
> I don't completely disagree with your statements Bhavin, but to be clear,
> the offer has been repeatedly made to both Register.com and Verisign
> concerning what gaining registrars must do, or what information we must
> provide to them in order to increase the level of comfort to the
> point with
> our (all registrars) processes where they would feel comfortable dropping
> their current policy and adopting a default ACK policy more in
> line with the
> rest of the industry. Neither have responded to this offer with any degree
> of seriousness. This only leaves me with the conclusion that your proposal
> below is equivalent to achieving a compromise without the input from the
> most affected parties. In effect, you are asking the majority of
> registrars
> to negotiate this process amongst themselves, reach a bland
> compromise that
> we think that Register.com and Verisign will like and table it for their
> approval or dismissal.
>
> Until such time that we get to a point where all parties are serious about
> compromise, any efforts in that direction are fruitless. Without that
> complete participation, questions concerning modification of policy to the
> detriment of the majority of registrars that employ reasonable transfer
> policies cannot be taken seriously. In other words, let's work on making
> what we have better and stop trying to "please" the one or two registrars
> that do not see things in the same manner that most registrars do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
> Tucows Inc.
> t. 416.538.5492
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavint@directi.com>
> To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 8:03 AM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
>
>
> > that is the primary issue Ross.
> >
> > unless the agreement specifically lays out a form of approval the losing
> > registrar will never be confortable with the fact that a domain is not
> being
> > hijacked. I am STRONGLY against letting the method of auth be upto the
> > gaining registrar, because in that case I believe Register.com or other
> > registrars wold be right in feeling scared to let a domain go
> not knowing
> > that the gaining registrar has employed correct procedures for obtaining
> > approval.
> >
> > i believe if you want auto-nacking to be accepted by all registrars then
> the
> > form of approval for a gainging registrar should be well defined without
> any
> > ambiguity with well defined fallback procedures incase the email address
> of
> > the appropriate contact dfefined in the express approval fails.
> I believe
> > both the questions you are trying to get scarpped represent those fall
> back
> > procedures
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:03 PM
> > > To: Bhavin Turakhia; registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd actually like to see those two questions scrapped and reissued as:
> > >
> > > "Should the form of authorization remain at the discretion of each
> gaining
> > > registrar as stated under the current policy?"
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tucows Inc.
> > > t. 416.538.5492
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavint@directi.com>
> > > To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:01 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
> > >
> > >
> > > > I would proposse one more question -
> > > >
> > > > 3. Should Registrars accept fax on the Registrants Letterhead
> > > as proof of
> > > > authorization? Yes__ No__
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
[mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of CORE Secretariat (W)
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:54 PM
> > > > To: Michael D. Palage
> > > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > > I hate to intervene when a poll is launched, but two of the
> > > > questions here
> > > > are unclear.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Should a standardized transfer authorization template be
> > > > required by all
> > > > > Registrars to verify a transfer request? Yes__ No__
> > > >
> > > > By the gaining registrar or by the losing registrar?
> > > >
> > > > > 3. Should Registrars accept notarized hard copy transfer
> > > > requests as proof
> > > > > of authorization? Yes__ No__
> > > >
> > > > I suspect the objective of the question is to ask if notarised
> > > > hard copies
> > > > should be the standard solution if email verification is not
> > > > possible. Given
> > > > the difficulty in notarising documents in most other countries
> > > > than the US,
> > > > our answer would be NO in that sense. But as the question stands
> > > > now, anyone
> > > > would to answer with YES, in the sense that an existing notarised
> > > > instruction
> > > > should of course be accepted.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Werner
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org
> > > > WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
> > > > Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat@corenic.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
>