Re: [registrars] Minutes & Straw Poll

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Ultimately, the form of the approval must
be at the discretion of the gaining registrar.

I don't think that it will be possibile
to specify forms of approval without a lengthly
process to define those forms of approval. Registrants
come in all sizes and types, and from all parts of the
world. Registrars come in all sizes and types also.

DomainRegistry.com  might take a verbal approval for a domain
transfer from someone we know and trust, and require
a notarized approval from another entity. In other
cases we may simply call and verify by phone
a request that has arrived when a form is
filled out, or we may send an email. 
(And the precautions would be different for Amazon
vs. Joes Flowers. Anyone who thinks they can 
design a system to accomodate both is not
being realistic.)

This is standard practice in business, and in many
cases (in business) things end up being a judgement
call or done without a signed contract.


With respect to domain transfers, the end result is is that if a registrar
transfers a name, and shouldn't have done so, they
would have some liability for the transfer. 
My guess would be that the losing registrar, by
virtue of the fact that this is ICANN policy, would 
not, but someone could perhaps verify this point.

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com


Bhavin Turakhia wrote:
> 
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------