RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles

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

>> 6.                  If the gaining registrar is responsible
>> for transfer
>> authentication and the losing registrar's special Whois is
>> not accessible for a to-be-specified time; this can be
>> grounds to allow the transfer to occur in case of a dispute.

>DISAGREE. Just the fact that the losing registrar's whois is down should
>not allow a domain hijack. I personally am ok with this since I don't
>have any issue, however it should not result in a wrong transfer, and
>therefore on a principle level I don't agree.

Bhavin, I think the key phrase here is "in case of a dispute." So a dispute
would need to be raised. If that is not the full meaining, then I would
agree with you.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles
   From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>
   Date: Fri, November 29, 2002 10:16 pm
   To: "'Ross Wm. Rader'" <ross@tucows.com>, <registrars@dnso.org>

   Hi chuck,

   Thanks for the EXHAUSTIVE list. Most of this is really helpful. Find
   my comments below -

   > 1.                  Registrars should provide a unique and
   > private email
   > address for use only by other registrars and the registry.

   AGREED

   > 2.                  Admin contact is the default authority.
   > 3.                  Registrant may overrule admin contact authority.

   AGREED. Though some registrars treat the Registrant as the Default
   authority. Also in absence of a valid Admin contact email address the
   Registrant may be contacted

   > 4.                  All transfer process communications to
   > registrants from
   > losing and gaining registrars should be standardized.

   AGREED

   > 5.                  Registrars should provide special,
   > standardized Whois
   > access, which may be separate from public Whois access, to
   > other registrars and the registry solely for the purpose of
   > transacting transfers.

   AGREED. However Registrar must be free to impose high level limits and
   monitors to ensure that no other Registrar misuses this. I am also
   wondering about the implementation details for this. will every
   registrar be given some password/key which would be used to
   authenticate access??

   > 6.                  If the gaining registrar is responsible
   > for transfer
   > authentication and the losing registrar's special Whois is
   > not accessible for a to-be-specified time; this can be
   > grounds to allow the transfer to occur in case of a dispute.

   DISAGREE. Just the fact that the losing registrar's whois is down
   should not allow a domain hijack. I personally am ok with this since I
   don't have any issue, however it should not result in a wrong
   transfer, and therefore on a principle level I don't agree.

   > 7.                  Minimum, standardized documentation
   > should be required
   > of registrars for all transfer procedure steps for use in
   > dispute resolution.

   AGREED

   > 8.                  English is the mandatory default language for
   > all registrar, registry and registrant transfer communications.
   > Additionally, registrars may communicate with registrants in
   > other languages provided that the principle of
   > standardization in principle 5 above is satisfied.

   AGREED

   > 9.                  Only registrars may initiate disputes.
   > If registrants
   > want to initiate a dispute, it must be done through a registrar.

   AGREED

   > 10.              The registry is responsible for first level dispute
   > resolution.

   AGREED

   > 11.              There will be a non-judicial second-level dispute
   > resolution process for appeals.

   AGREED

   > 12.              Losing and gaining registrars should be required to
   > complete specific transfer process steps within
   > to-be-determined and specifically defined time periods.

   AGREED

   > 13.              Only losing or gaining registrar should
   > authenticate the
   > transfer request, not both.

   AGREED

   > 14.              If some form of auth code is used, the same
   > auth code must
   > be used for the same domain name and the same gaining registrar.

   I don't understand this one. An auth code is unique for that domain
   name, and therefore where does th question of the gaining registrar
   come in at all. Incidentally if we have an EPP style authcode
   mechanism for transfers, it would resolve most issues

   > 15.              If a new transfer process is adopted, the new
   > process replaces the old process (i.e., a registrar can't use the
   > new
   > process and the old process as a follow up to restrict a transfer).

   AGREED

   > 16.              Reasons for a losing registrar to deny a transfer:
   > .        Evidence of fraud
   > .        UDRP action
   > .        Court order
   > .        Non-payment for previous registration period if transfer is
   > requested after the expiration date or non-payment for the
   > current registration period if transfer is requested before
   > the expiration date.

   AGREED