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

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

"Exactly. And how do I know that he has? The only way I know is if I ask
for it and verify it PRIOR to allowing the transfer or if I confirm it
independantly."

The Losing Registrar has zero incentive to gain this confirmation under
the current construct.





                       -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: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 8:05 AM
To: ross@tucows.com
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update


>How can the gaining registrar obtain the requisite authorization if
>the registrant doesn't accept the request?
 
Exactly. And how do I know that he has? The only way I know is if I ask
for it and verify it PRIOR to allowing the transfer or if I confirm it
independantly.
 
Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Date: Mon, September 2, 2002 7:43 pm
To: <tim@godaddy.com>

How can the gaining registrar obtain the requisite authorization if
the registrant doesn't accept the request? Your "determined hacker"
scenario is far-fetched.


-rwr




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

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
- Soren Kierkegaard



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status
Update


> Would never happen? C'mon, let's get realistic. You're asking me to
> count
on the fact that a competitor has done their job, and that they will
cooperate if they haven't? The fact remains that the losing registrar
is best judge of apparent authority, has an existing contractual
obligation to the registrant, and should not be (and I would argue
cannot be) required to ACK a transfer without verifying it with the
registrant in a manner they deem appropriate.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status
> Update From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> Date: Mon, September 2, 2002 8:22 am
> To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
>
> > >What about the case where a determined hijacker repeatedly puts
> > >in transfer requests for a domain name? The registrant would be
> > >expected to affirm repeatedly that they disapprove each transfer.
> >
> > Or put it on lock;-) Regards, BobC
>
> Or it gets caught by the manual review and/or black-list.
>
> Or more importantly, the administrative contact/registrant *never*
> approves the request for authorization and the process goes nowhere.
> Don't forget that the authorizations received by the GR must be
> explicit so the situation that you are describing and that others
> are supporting would never happen.
>
>
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom
> of thought which they seldom use."
> - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
> To: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 10:04 AM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status
> Update
>
>
> > At 04:59 AM 9/2/02 -0400, Michael Bilow wrote:
> > >What about the case where a determined hijacker repeatedly puts
> > >in transfer requests for a domain name? The registrant would be
> > >expected to affirm repeatedly that they disapprove each transfer.
> >
> > Or put it on lock;-) Regards, BobC