Re: [registrars] Transfer Ballot

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Larry,

This goes back to the premise that if the gaining registrar is doing their
job (as required by the gaining registrar processes), then the losing
registrar should not have concern in any of the cases that you describe
below. If there is concern, then the redress and denial processes can most
certainly be invoked.

ICANN has clearly specified that failure to respond to a request made by the
losing registrar does not constitute a valid reason for the losing registrar
to deny the request (as the sole determinant). ICANN's contract also makes
it very clear that the registered name holder or *someone with the apparent
authority* can approve or deny requests.

I'm not pretending that these document are perfect. But they do constitute a
much more solid foundation than what we have under our current agreements.
These documents can be changed, but they have to be accepted first. If their
not accepted, then we are right back at square one with this. If we move
back to square one, then the rules of engagement will most certainly change.

Thanks,

-rwr



Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Transfer Ballot


> Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I should have been more explicit with my answer Larry. How does
your
> > sister grant authorization to the gaining registrar if she is on
vacation?
>
> Maybe, in this particular case I happen to
> know that "no way no how" that my sister,
> with a domain that she controls, would switch
> registrar.
>
> Let's start with that assumption.
>
> And maybe, the same might be true for my
> best friend, and for certain clients
> that we deal with.
>
> In the case of the clients,
> perhaps the person that I deal with is
> the highest ranking person in the firm,
> but the contact on the account is a person
> under that person. (After all, the Chairman of
> GM is not the admin contact, on the domain.
> But maybe Elliot Noss golfs with him, or maybe
> he plays tennis with the head of IT at GM?
>
> Further to that point, this is the admin
> contact at GM.com (where TUCOWs is registrar):
>
>  DNS Contact, EDS NNAM  dnsmaster@eds.com
>     300 Renaissance Center
>     Detroit, MI 48265
>     US
>     248-265-5000 #2
>
> Which of course is not even a person.
> So using your document, there is no common
> sense override for someone who manages to
> get hold of the dnsmaster@eds.com email
> account.)
>
>
> Back to the case of my sister. She is the Director
> of Research at a Hospital, and runs a small
> consulting business.
>
> Maybe someone who works under her "her computer person"
> has put the transfer in. Or maybe her (soon to be ex) husband, who
> has access to her email, has put in or approved the change request.
> Or maybe she was duped when she signed up for hosting.
>
> Your document does not allow for a common
> sense exception to be invoked if the registrar
> has a reasonable belief that the request should
> not have been made, or should not have
> been approved.
>
> There is precedent for this. A Doctor writes
> a prescription. A pharmacist is supposed to fill the prescription,
> but will not if they have reason to believe that
> there is an error. (They will try and get in touch
> with the Doctor. But if they can't they might not
> fill the prescription.) One reason that medical
> errors happen is that people tend not to question
> with common sense what the Doctor orders or says.
> I have personal experience with this and
> would be glad to give you examples.
>
> By the way, in Bensalem, a Doctor (in the building
> that we are located in) was arrested for writing
> prescriptions for Oxy-Contin to drug addicts.
> The pharmacist called the doctor to verify the prescriptions and
> the Doctor said everyting was "ok". The pharmacist
> STILL did not fill the presciptions, and alerted
> the authorities. Turns out the Doctor was practicing
> without a medical license, among other things.
> The pharmacist used his common sense and
> helped save lives.
>
>
> > The answer is that the process makes it extremely unlikely your
fictitious
> > example would occur.
>
> It doesn't matter how unlikely. What do you see as the harm
> (by having a common sense exception)?
> Do you think Verisign or Register.com
> are going to invoke this exception 7,000 times per week?
>
>
> > The registered name holder must provide authorization
> > for the transfer to occur.
>
> Registered name holder takes many forms. The authorization
> is as simple as someone who has access to the email account
> making an approval. Many of our clients allow their
> admin assts. to answer their email.
>
> > In order for things to get to the point that you
> > describe, someone with some level of authority related to the name had
to
> > undertake the transfer. Gut feel doesn't count when it comes to denying
> > transfers.
>
> That is where we differ.
>
> > This is where the out-of-band resolution becomes necessary. Who
> > requested the transfer, who approved it etc...
>
> Doesn't matter. The question is not whether the
> gaining registrar has received what THEY THINK is the
> approval. I will stipulate that they have. This is just
> a final check to allow a denial based upon some reasonable
> belief that the request should not have been made.
>
> >
> > I'm disappointed that you would vote to disapprove the process based on
this
> > misunderstanding.
> > This document has been in the wild for weeks now.
>
> Well, sorry about that.
> One of the realities of this group is that there
> are some who have the ability to spend more time
> on these issues (because of the nature of their
> jobs) creating formal documents that the rest
> of us get to comment on. Sometimes there is just
> not enough time to run a business and spend the
> proper time analysing and commenting on these
> things. So this is what ends up happening.
>
>
> > Further
> > to that, it has been made painfully clear that it is open to amendment.
If
> > you feel strongly that gut-feel mechanisms must be in place as you
describe
> > below, then the most appropriate way to accomplish this is not to block
the
> > document, but to work with it and improve it going forward.
>
> The point of needing a common sense exception was made
> in at least 1 (and possibly 2) teleconferences that I
> attended. I'm almost certain that other registrars also
> had the same concern. It also had to do with blocking
> a rogue registrar. I'm sorry that I did not catch
> that it was missing when it was out for review.
>
> >
> > You do imply that there are "other things" that are causing you to hold
back
> > your approval. Could you elaborate on this further?
>
> May or may not be the case. I just didn't
> want to imply that it was 100% ok except for this.
>
>
> > If there are truly
> > serious flaws with this document, then the time to hear about them is
now.
>
> You seem to imply that the document could
> be modified at this point.
>
> Larry Erlich
>
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > Tucows Inc.
> > t. 416.538.5492
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>
> > To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> > Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 5:14 PM
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Transfer Ballot
> >
> > > IRDX
> > > >
> > > > [ ] APPROVE
> > > >
> > > > [X] DISAPPROVE
> > > >
> > > > ***     END BALLOT      ***
> > >
> > >
> > > Among other things, I feel that there should have
> > > been some "common sense" exception
> > > to deny a transfer, if used on a limited
> > > basis. I know that this had been discussed.
> > >
> > > I asked the following question
> > > of the drafters, and Mike Palage:
> > >
> > > "A review of the IRDX seems to indicate
> > > that a losing registrar couldn't deny a request
> > > based upon reasonable belief that the registrar's
> > > customer would not make such a request (and there
> > > is no time, or no way, to verify it with the
> > > current registrar). Example: My sister is on
> > > vacation and a request has been entered to
> > > transfer her name."
> > >
> > > And received the following response (from Ross):
> > >
> > > -- Both the gaining and losing registrar may both request
authorization
> > from
> > > -- the registrant. If the gaining registrar requests a transfer, the
> > losing
> > > -- registrar must approve the transfer unless the registrant
specifically
> > > -- objects based on the presumption that the gaining registrar has
> > acquired
> > > -- authorization. If the losing registrar wishes, he may request
> > confirmation
> > > -- of the authorization from the gaining registrar.
> > > --
> > > -- In a case like this, I would suggest that a phone call to the
gaining
> > > -- registrar would be in order so that the unique case could be
handled
> > > -- out-of-band.
> > >
> > > I don't see the above suggestion as a practical
> > > way to handle THIS situation. (Different time zones
> > > of registrars, and the need to deny a transfer
> > > in 5 days to name a few reasons. And I don't have
> > > "hotline" email addresses of MOST other registrars,
> > > only the same email address that anyone would
> > > have to write to. )
> > >
> > > Larry Erlich
> > >
> > > http://www.DomainRegistry.com
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> > > 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------