[registrars] Comments on Register.com Report

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

Find Excerpts and then COMMENTS>

When a gaining registrar maintains such proper authorization practices, a
losing registrar should not deny a transfer request unless it receives an
express objection from an individual who has the apparent authority to
legally bind the Registered Name Holder.  Conversely, when a gaining
registrar does not maintain proper authorization practices, a losing
registrar should deny a transfer request unless it receives the express
authorization from an individual who has the apparent authority to legally
bind the Registered Name holder.

COMMENT> Very political scenario. it is anyways covered in ICANN's
agreement. ICANN's agreement states that the gaining registar must obtain
express authorisation from a registrant. If a Registrar does not do that
they are violating ICANN's agreement. if we leave it to registrars Each
registrar would interpret their own meaning of what constitutes appropriate
practices. If on the other hand ICANN themselves drafted the same in their
agreement that may help. The abv point is valid ONLY if it is in the ICANN
agreement and then again it MUST be accompanied by a definition of what
constitutes as PROPER AUTHORISATION PRACTICES

Documentation and Review
========================
· Registrars must retain an electronic or written copy of the reliable
evidence of transfer authorization and produce such at the request of a
losing registrar within five business days of such request.

COMMENTS>  I believe a reasonable timeframe is a better word to use than 5
business days

· If the gaining registrar fails to produce such evidence within such time
frame, the gaining Registrar must transfer the affected domain name to the
losing registrar promptly upon request of
the losing registrar.

COMMENTS>  Would this again add one more yr to the domain - has it been
considered the customer may not want to do this trf .... has it been
considered that this becomes an infinite loop if the customer again needs to
approve whether he wants to shift back from the gaining reg to the losing
reg

Form of Reliable Evidence of Authorization
==========================================
COMMENT> This does not talk of authorisation where an email is sent
requesting authorisation, however the actual authorisation is accepted on
the internet, using a web page which requires the customer to feed in a key
emailed to the appropriate contact (the method which TUCOWS uses). In which
case IP address, browser type, date etc etc would be required.

COMMENT> I believe the methods are inadequate, there maybe a lengthier list.
I also believe it may be sliglty difficult to quantify every type of
authorisation method that maybe used by Registrars. I distinctly remember a
Registrar stating that if he has a close relationship with a client, an
authorisation on the phone maybe enuf for him. I dont know to what extent
that goes in line with the ICANN agreement however since it is not
reproducible as the agreement requires. But my comment stems more from the
fact that there may be infinite modes of reproducible authorisation and
listing them out and binding everyone to them and basing decisions on them
ourselves as to what maybe appropriate and what not maybe difficult and may
never end. Some registrar may consider smoke signals as appropriate
authorisation - hell it may even be legally binding in his country (kidding)
..... but to make a point - this exercise maybe difficult