RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Ross,

Actually, I could use many of the same arguments to justify the opposite
position.

It would be an interesting poll to ask registrants which is more important
to them: 1) The ease with which you can transfer your domain between
registrars; or 2) The security of your domain.

I think the results of such a poll would depend a lot on how informed the
registrants were about the current process and its potential pitfalls.

As a loosing registrar who does understand the importance of our customers
and of providing them with convenient tools, good customer service, and
reliable security, how can we, or why should we, rely on a competitor to be
doing our job for us? Ross, it just doesn't make sense to me.

The loosing registrar MUST at least be "allowed" to obtain some form of
verification of a transfer BEFORE it ACKs it. Again, I don't think you're
going to successfully stop that and I don't think it's our place to try.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:43 PM
To: tim@godaddy.com; 'Registrar Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update


Tim - I've been in heavy listening mode for this conversation to make
sure that our collective view is adequately put forward within the TF.

A few points of clarification are needed however.

The draft policy generally contemplates the following;

1. That the default rule on a transfer request from the registry to the
losing registrar should be an "ack" in all cases unless the losing
registrar has explicit knowledge that the registrant does not wish to
undertake the transfer.

2. That the gaining registrar must only initiate the transfer process
with the explicit consent of the registrant or an entity that the
registrar reasonably believes has the authority to act on the
registrants behalf.

3. (This one is perhaps the most important) That the processes employed
by registrars to undertake these types of transactions are registrant
friendly and do not require the implementation of bureaucratic artifice
such as double acknowledgements, artificial barriers to portability etc.
In other words, the processes might be complex for registrars to carry
out, but simple for registrants to deal with - "designed for the
consumer" in other words - simple, efficient and safe.

A few comments on your specifics...

> The method of obtaining apparent authority here is backwards.
> In reality, the loosing registrar is the best gauge of who
> truly has current apparent authority. Registrars are not
> required to update their Whois information any more often
> than once in 24 hours. As a result, using Whois data for the
> gaining registrar to try and figure out who has apparent
> authority is not safe. Requiring them to go beyond that adds
> undue burden on the gaining registrar and the registrant
> making the request.

It is in fact the duty of both the losing and gaining registrar to
execute the wishes of the registrant, or an agent of the registrant.
Currently, it is the obligation of the gaining registrar to determine
what these wishes are and whether or not they are in fact the true
actual wishes of the registrant (or perhaps a clever fraud).

> I don't like the idea of counting on the gaining registrar to
> be honest and complete in their dealings regarding transfers.

I can empathize with what you are saying here, but this is the policy
construct that we signed up for and that the constituency has agreed to.
The fact remains that not only is this common practice in many
industries (gaining supplier verifying intent), it is the most customer
friendly approach to the problem. Keep in mind point #3 above - optimize
the process for the registrant. If that means that industry needs to get
smarter about how it implements its processes, then so be it - but you
should know this better than most - happy customers are profitable
customers. I wouldn't let some of the recent distasteful events cloud
your judgement in this matter. Even though some registrars have
undertaken what has been viewed as being less than ethical marketing and
transfer practices, the fact is that the current system works quite
well, with the exception of a few minor loopholes. If everyone is
abiding by the same rules, and the rules are tightly crafted and
well-enforced, then most of these harsh lessons that you point to
evaporate almost immediately. We cannot however fall into the bad trap
of letting the bad facts that we have seen over the past few months
determine what will likely result in bad policy.


> instances of registrars needing to invoke the unnecessarily
> complicated and time consuming Losing Registrar Redress will
> be greatly reduced, if not eliminated altogether.

We talked about this during the call yesterday. The fact of the matter
is that the LRR-specific process are only necessary if there isn't a
third party willing to enforce. Remember that the roots of this document
assume a registrar self-enforcement model. The processes and enforcement
mechanisms look a lot simpler and much more expedient if a third party
is brought in to act as Solomon.

> v. Request to transfer sponsorship occurs in the first 60
> days after a transfer of sponsorship.

I'd like to hear more on this point from the constituency.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:51 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team
> Status Update
>
>
> Ross,
>
> The method of obtaining apparent authority here is backwards.
> In reality, the loosing registrar is the best gauge of who
> truly has current apparent authority. Registrars are not
> required to update their Whois information any more often
> than once in 24 hours. As a result, using Whois data for the
> gaining registrar to try and figure out who has apparent
> authority is not safe. Requiring them to go beyond that adds
> undue burden on the gaining registrar and the registrant
> making the request.
>
> As a result I strongly urge that 7.f does NOT result in an
> ACK of the transfer by the loosing registrar. The person with
> the apparent authority according to the loosing registrar's
> records MUST verify the transfer request for it to go
> through. Nothing else really makes sense here if one of our
> goals is to truly protect the registrant from fraudulent
> transfers. If the party with apparent authority confirms with
> the loosing registrar that the transfer request is valid, the
> loosing registrar HAS confirmation then that the gaining
> registrar has acquired the appropriate FOA.
>
> I don't like the idea of counting on the gaining registrar to
> be honest and complete in their dealings regarding transfers.
> It is too difficult, if not impossible, to get things
> reversed with certain registrars. We had some rather
> unpleasant dealings with one in China a few months ago on a
> related issue.
>
> If transfers are conducted in this manner, the number of
> instances of registrars needing to invoke the unnecessarily
> complicated and time consuming Losing Registrar Redress will
> be greatly reduced, if not eliminated altogether.
>
> In addition, I strongly urge the addition of the following v. to 5.r:
>
> v. Request to transfer sponsorship occurs in the first 60
> days after a transfer of sponsorship.
>
> This would add another seriously needed level of protection
> against fraud. However, if the loosing registrar MUST obtain
> approval from someone with apparent authority, this may not
> be as necessary.
>
> Tim Ruiz
> Go Daddy Software, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 11:17 AM
> To: 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update
>
>
> Members,
>
> Please find to follow below a brief report on the status of
> the work of the Transfers TF as it relates to Transfers. Note
> that we are progressing reasonably well through a review of
> the Registrar Constituency proposal and have made a few
> modifications that I believe are amenable to the interests of
> Registrars. I had hoped at this point that we would have
> received feedback from the Registry Constituency given their
> renewed commitment to the issue, however I suspect that "real
> life" is somehow interfering with finalizing the revisions
> referenced below. I don't expect this delay to draw out in
> any meaningful way (we should be able to resolve it this
> afternoon during our call) but it needs to be brought to the
> attention of the constituency nonetheless.
>
> The Task Force is still targetting the Shanghai meeting for
> tabling of our recommendations and we look to be in good
> shape at this point. If there are any questions between now
> and Amsterdam, I am happy to answer them as they come up. I
> expect to deliver a full progress report and draft
> recommendations during the timing of the Amsterdam meeting.
>
> Thanks in advance, (and as noted below, apologies for the
> proprietary document format).
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> shore like an idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-nc-transfer@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:10 PM
> To: 'Transfer TF (E-mail)'
> Subject: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update
>
>
> Folks,
>
> Please find attached a copy of the latest draft (version 1,
> revision 2, draft 2) of the IRDX proposal that the drafting
> team has been working on for the last two weeks or so.
>
> During the call today, I would like to focus on a review of
> points 8 through 15 (pages 14, 15 and 16) (highlighted in
> blue) with an eye towards ensuring that the process
> appropriately takes into account the needs of R'ants, R'rars
> and R'ry's. The feedback that the drafting team gathers
> through this review will be invaluable in providing us with
> the guidance that we need to complete our task.
>
> I would also like to review the formal revisions made thus
> far to ensure that the language used appropriately captures
> the intent and sentiment of the larger group.
>
> Please note that the revisions are not as sweeping as I had
> expected as we are still waiting for input on enforcement
> mechanisms from the Registry Constituency reps to the
> Drafting Team. I do not have an ETA for delivery of these
> details, so its not likely that we can cover them on the
> call, however the call will give us the capability to rework
> the deadlines in order to keep the document on track
>
> If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me a note.
>
> Apologies in advance for the proprietary document format.
>
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> shore like an idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal: http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
>