RE: [registrars] Inter-registrar Domain Name Transfer (IRDX) Proposal

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

Hi,

Firstly let me commend TUCOWS/Ross for a wonderful effort .... a good amount
of time has been spent on the document as I see (mebbe the poll shoulda been
on the top of da page :-) )

Heres my two bits about the process - mebbe not equally well organised

Excerpts from your Process document -

"STEP 2:Gaining Registrar retrieves Whois record for domain from Losing
Registrar and stores output – This could be accomplished through any Whois
service as long as the output is an authoritative representation of the
Losing Registrar’s data."

*** retreiving Whois record is one thing, parsing it for the appropriate
information is the issue. I beleive this  should be sorted if/when we have a
common whois format, until then the only foolproof way is manual parsing. A
large number of registrars have automated this process to a large extent,
TUCOWS included I believe, by parsing through the varied text forms to
derive the email id o registrant or admin contact. Gandi has an opensource
whoisextract perl modulke available for the same too. however fundamentally
there is a possibility of this auto-parsing not yielding correct results. By
incorrect results I mean two kinds of possibilities -

1. no results obtained.... ie the parsing did not return a valid email id.
This is not a problem, since the admin/registrant will never get any email
and will therefore not reply to this

2. getting the wrong email id. This is the issue. I have seen discussions
where some registrars maybe basing their auto parsing function on an
assumption that the whois is always in the following order - Registrant,
Admin, Tech, Billing. I believe the assumption may be correct to the degree
that it probably holds true for all of us, however nothing precludes a
registrar from changing their whois format and displaying the billing
contact first, or nothing stops a domain owner from putting an email address
in the postal address field. An automated program that parses this whois may
come up with a wrong email id resulting in the authorisation request being
sent to the wrong contact point. I dont really know a possible solution to
this since manually verifying wach whois output would be a costly affair,
but there are certain principles that we as a community could adopt to make
it easy to parse whois data for everyone.

"STEP: 11 Transfer authorization record stored with transaction by Gaining
Registrar – ICANN requires that authorization records must be stored for a
period of time to ensure the validity of transactions on a historical basis.
Data that should be stored as part of this process include;
- Name and email address of original requestor

*** The name and email address of orignal requestor when the request is made
on the web would not  have any legal validity

- Registrant of record as declared by losing registrar Whois
- Administrative contact of record as declared by losing registrar Whois

*** Easier to store the entire Whois output instead of just the
Registrant/Admin contact details. The whois record is being fetched
anyways...

- Originating IP address of the individual undertaking the authorization of
the request (where appropriate)
- Time and date filed with registry for processing (if appropriate)"

"STEP: 13 Inspection"

*** I applaud the idea of an automated inspection. How does TUCOWS determine
however the list of domains that go in your blacklist. Also does TUCOWS do
ANY MANUAL inspection for EVERY domain at this stage? Except for a match
against blacklisted names I dont see much that could be done at this stage.
And then again if that is the only inspection that your inspection step
consists of then those could actually be carried out BEFORE sending an
authorisation request and before parsing the whois record of the losing
registrar. Though that means more work for the registrar.

Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
CEO
Directi
----------------------------
91-22-6372982/3276/0256/3332
http://www.directi.com
----------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:27 PM
> To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: [registrars] Inter-registrar Domain Name Transfer (IRDX)
> Proposal
>
>
> Registrars,
>
> Movement on the issue of transfers has been difficult and slow. The
> opponents of a default "ack" arrangement have continually pointed to the
> lack of diligent process employed by gaining registrars. In order
> to address
> this concern and provide the constituency with a starting point
> for process
> dialogue, Tucows respectfully submits the following process proposal for
> consideration, and hopefully adoption, by the constituency membership.
> Accordingly, we request that the work required to move this proposal to
> adopted status be formally placed on the agenda of the constituency for
> attention as quickly as possible.
>
> The proposal can be found in a number of formats at
> http://www.byte.org/rc-transfers/ along with related documentation,
> proposals and links. Please note that the processes described in the
> proposal are purposely generic in nature. As the principles of
> the document
> indicate, specific implementations must be left to the discretion of each
> registrar. However, the checks and balances that the proposal
> contains does
> (or will after constituency input) support the requirements of
> the ICANN RAA
> and the Verisign RRA and provide each registrar with a balanced starting
> point by which to undertake IRDX without excessive operational
> and financial
> burdens or lack of care for registrant requirements.
>
> It seems to make sense that dialogue around this proposal take
> place on this
> mailing list, however, a separate list can easily be created if the group
> feels that the discussion of this proposal might be distracting
> to the other
> work of the constituency.
>
> It is Tucows hope that we, all registrars, can iterate on this document,
> make corrections, modifications and improvements where possible, and then
> drive towards adoption and implementation as quickly as possible.
> It may or
> may not be the case currently that this document is ready for a
> vote - this
> is a question best left answered by the constituency as a whole.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Ross Wm. Rader
> Director, Innovation & Research
> Tucows Inc.
> t. 416.535.0123
> f. 416.531.5584
>