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

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

> None of my arguments are meant to scare anyone. They are 
> based on fact, in fact they are based on our own experiences. 
> How does that not bear on the subject matter? I'm sure none 
> of us want to hide our heads in the sand and pretend these 
> issues don't exist. And if you're going to try and compare 
> this to the telco industry, perhaps you ought to get into all 
> the problems they've experienced as well.

I was referring to your "international nature" and "encouraging fraud"
comments. Neither, in fact, are relevant or necessarily true. Second,
the telco's have a workable transfer policy, process and enforcement -
sure its not without problems, but it works - and works much better than
what we are faced with today.


> I don't appreciate you're dismissing my concerns as 
> irrational, and sorry, I'm not that easy to hush.

Not my intent. And thanks for the format change ;)


                       -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-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 8:50 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: [nc-transfer] Drafting Team 
> Status Update
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> None of my arguments are meant to scare anyone. They are 
> based on fact, in fact they are based on our own experiences. 
> How does that not bear on the subject matter? I'm sure none 
> of us want to hide our heads in the sand and pretend these 
> issues don't exist. And if you're going to try and compare 
> this to the telco industry, perhaps you ought to get into all 
> the problems they've experienced as well.
> 
> I don't appreciate you're dismissing my concerns as 
> irrational, and sorry, I'm not that easy to hush.
> 
> 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 5:30 am
> To: <tim@godaddy.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
> 
> 
>