ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[registrars]


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

RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal


Bruce,
 
I agree about the enforcement element. It is all a waste of time without that.
 
I would also agree that it "seems" to be a waste of time to debate it further. However, I would hope that the TF's request for comments is sincere and that our formal comments, when submitted, will be considered seriously.
 
Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Interim Transfer Proposal
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Date: Mon, September 23, 2002 10:30 pm
To: "'tim@godaddy.com'" <tim@godaddy.com>,
"'Registrar Constituency'"
<registrars@dnso.org>

Hello Tim,

>
>
> Summary comment in the proposal: "Inter-registrar domain name
> transfers
> become transactions predicated on trust and an assumed lack
> of malfeasance
> on behalf of any party to the transaction."
>
> As a result, it should no more assume any registrar would
> "game" the system
> than that one would "slam" it. As a result losing registrars
> should not have
> their hands tied as a result of such assumption of
> malfeasance as implied
> below.
>

Any system can be equally gamed by either the losing registrar or the
gaining registrar.
The current agreement between the Verisign registry and each registrar
states that it is the gaining registrar's responsibility to obtain the
approval from the registrant, however the Registry technical process
gives the losing registrar the power of veto. Thus presently at the
technical level the losing registrar effectively has control over the
process, and is in the strongest position to "game" the system.

In either approach, what is currently lacking is any enforcement
procedures.

The guiding principle is that the registrant should be able to choose
their registrar.
We need:
(1) A consistent process for the registrant to make their choice (this
is what the Transfers Task Force has focussed on so far, and what the
latest Verisign proposal attempts)
(2) An enforcement process to ensure that neither the gaining or
losing registrar can interfere in (1) - this is not currently solved
by either the transfers task force or Verisign Registry proposal as
yet, and is the missing element.

From my point of view, I don't care who's responsibility it is to get
the approval of the registrant, as long as such approval from the
registrant can be independently verified by the other party. It does
not make sense that the registrant needs to go through two separate
verification processes from both the losing and gaining registrar.
This just leads to registrant confusion.

An extreme solution is to create an independent third party that
verifies and authorises transfers. This has been done in some
industries. There is a cost in doing this, but it does remove the
power from either the gaining or losing registrar, and places it in
the hand of the registrant.

Melbourne IT supports the current draft of the transfer task force
report and the Verisign proposal (with the clause about allowing
transfers if the registrant does not reply to the losing registrar).
It is a waste of effort to debate this further.

Melbourne IT would like to see us move on and deal with an enforcement
approach that is acceptable to both the losing and gaining registrar.
This is where the efforts of all would be better spent.

Regards,
Bruce



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