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

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

Tim - a couple of points...

A) turn of the HTML in your posts - it makes it impossible to quote
back...:)

B) You keep introducing points into the argument that have little or no
bearing on the subject matter - almost as if you are attempting to scare
us into a conclusion. For instance, you are now introducing jurisdiction
into the matter when it, in fact, has little or no bearing on the issue
of whom obtains authorization. You also characterize the proposals on
the table as enabling fraud in some way without supporting your
statements.

Do me a favor and try to stick to the facts of the matter here - and if
you wish to introduct new ones, try and do it in a manner that has some
basis in relevant fact.

Here's a fact for you - the IRDX document is entirely consistent with
the practices of the telco industry that govern how subscribers switch
their long distance service from one provider to another. 

Here's another fact for you related to one of your questions...("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?")

I'm currently dealing with (from a Tucows perspective) a number of
registrants whose domain names have expired and been re-registered by
third parties because the losing registrar failed to acknowledge a
transfer request (despite having sought authorization from the
registrant) and also failed to renew the domain name despite the
explicit instructions of the customer. This is not uncommon under the
current system which works almost exactly as you have described for many
registrars. Which is worse? 

As I mentioned, we've hashed through these arguments many, many times on
this list - perhaps you might want to take a few moments to re-read some
of the historical posts to the archive to get a better flavor for why
this document is what it is. We are not dealing with positions arrived
at in a vacuum, and in fact, the base document that I proposed to the
task force was a compromise that was drafted by a pro-ACK member
(Tucows) and a pro-NACK member (RCOM) that was subsequently accepted by
the constituency through a majority vote. The Task Force is currently
going through the process of fine-tuning this document for the purpose
of ensuring that it is implementable in a meaningful manner.

This isn't to say that your comments aren't welcomed, but rather that I
would appreciate seeing them in a more rational manner.



                       -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 8:16 AM
To: ross@tucows.com
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: 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