RE: [registrars] Bounced Message from Jeff Neuman

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

Patrick,

You could easily avoid many of these problems by simply verifying a transfer
request with your registrant, or other apparent authority, before you ACK
it.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Patrick
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:45 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Bounced Message from Jeff Neuman


On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:26:54PM -0400, Michael D. Palage took time to
write:
> I have forwarded this to the Registry Constituency for a formal response.
> Let me clarify one thing.  Our comments on the last conference call were
> with respect to acting as arbiters with respect to disputes between
gaining
> and losing registrars.  We do not have the resources or expertise to act
ass
> judge and jury as to whether the gaining registrar had actual apparent
> authority to initiate the transfer or that the losing registrar improperly
> "NACKED" a specific transfer request.

From our experience, most of the time
- gaining Registrar does not reply to request for authorizations
received from losing Registrar (or 3 months later)
- when it does reply, most of the time, there is no information
whatsoever. Often we hear back that we should contact such and such
resellers having initiated the transfer, etc...

This is *clearly* explained in agreements, and could be *easily*
enforced. But only Registries can enforce that.

In short, even before seeing actual proof, Registries should enforce
contracts by making sure that
a Registrar gives authorization he has when asked (by losing
Registrar) in a timely manner. In my view, this is far from being
always the case right now.

Close attention should also be taken on change of ownership at the
same time as the transfer.

It would also be good if Registries implement a way to correct
fraudulent transfers (when acknowledged by gaining Registrar).
Right now the only way is to do a transfer, which creates 3 problems
1) the losing Registrar has all burden, when the burden should be on
the gaining Registrar which made the fraudulent transfer
2) cost (against, on the losing Registrar burden)
3) adding one year

In short, Registries should implement a transfer ``undo'' for such
cases (just change of sponsoring Registrar, without change in
expiration, and at no cost).


As for NACK, it would help that expiration date are shown.
To be specific, we have a transfer that fails because the previous
Registrar claims the domain name is expired. Its whois shows January
2004 however. Only the Registry can tell if it is really expired or
not. And it should help, when we write this Registrar and got no
answers at all.

In short, the problem is far from being to expertise proofs shown. It
would just be to ensure proofs *are* shown.

Patrick.