ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


I disagree. Customers give us all the incentive we need. Any registrar that decides to start attempting to hold registrants captive will not be in business long. And the alternative being proposed just encourages fraud. Which is worse for the registrant, dealing with a registrar who isn't allowing their transfer or with a situation where they've lost their domain entirely?
 
Given the international nature of our industry, it makes no sense to put registrars in a position where they will be trying to hammer out transfer problems accross borders after the fact, when it's a simple matter to allow the registrar to verify it before the fact.
 
Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team Status Update
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Date: Tue, September 3, 2002 5:07 am
To: <tim@godaddy.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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>