Re: [registrars] Fw: WHOIS & Transfers reports

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

Hallo,

It is not the first time in that very issue that I rise my objections to the 
suggested transfer procedure.

For the sake of shortness I will concentrate on one item only:

25. Instances when the Losing Registrar may not deny a 
transfer include, but are not limited to; 

*   No response from the Registrant or Administrative 
    contact ...

I do repeat : no response can, according to german law ( and I 
would be surprised if in other european countries that is different),
NOT be considered as agreement.

It just as simple : introducing that will have the effect that some 
registrars will act agains the law or not follow that procedure:
not really a good result.
Not dealing with that fact is not going to help anybody.

siegfried


On 26 Feb 2003 at 19:38, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> FYI...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cute, Brian" <bcute@networksolutions.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:07 PM
> Subject: WHOIS & Transfers reports
> 
> 
> > Dear Bruce and Ken,
> >
> > I am writing you on behalf of Network Solutions with regard
> > to the GNSO Council's recent approval of task force reports on Transfers
> and
> > WHOIS.  As our registrar representatives on the Council, I write to you to
> > underscore Network Solutions' continuing concern regarding the likely
> > negative impact of the implementation of these Reports on registrants and
> > registrars alike.  Specifically, the growing awareness within the
> Registrar
> > community of the privacy implications raised by these Reports has given us
> > pause to again carefully consider whether the implementation of either
> > Report at this time is desirable.  We believe that implementation of
> either
> > report would be premature, at best.
> >
> > Network Solutions participated in the development of each
> > report in an effort to improve the recommendations contained therein.  We
> > believe that the reports have been improved, but have become increasingly
> > convinced that implementation of them could 1) create significant privacy
> > concerns for registrants; 2) subject consumers to future unauthorized
> domain
> > name transfers and unwanted marketing solicitations;  and 3) create
> > unworkable obligations and significant potential liability for registrars.
> >
> > Specifically, the Transfers Report seeks to
> > significantly restructure the transfer process in response to concerns
> > raised almost two years ago about the efficiency and reliability of the
> > transfer process.  During that period, however, broad improvements in the
> > efficiency of transfers have rendered the issues addressed by the
> Transfers
> > Report all but moot.  At Network Solutions, for example, transfer success
> > rates have dramatically improved since the Transfers Task Force initiated
> > its work.  Today, almost 90 percent of attempts to transfer domain names
> > from Network Solutions are successful and we expect that ratio to continue
> > to rise as our processes are improved.  As a result, we believe that
> > implementation of the Transfers Report would have a limited impact on the
> > efficiency of transfers.
> >
> > In contrast, the proposed transfer procedures would
> > unavoidably have the affect of increasing the rate of unauthorized
> > transfers.  Rising incidences of slamming make the inherent risk of
> imposing
> > the proposed transfer scheme contained in the Transfers Report greater
> than
> > ever for registrants.  Although the Transfers Report attempts to provide
> as
> > many safeguards as possible for registrants, the proposed process requires
> > registry transfers to be initiated before the registrant has verified the
> > transfer.  We continue to believe that this system will encourage
> slamming,
> > as unscrupulous actors will simply migrate to the gaining registrars with
> > the weakest systems of checks and balances.
> >
> > Finally, shifting responsibility for transfer verification
> > to gaining registrars creates an unreasonable burden for registrars, as it
> > is virtually impossible for registrars to efficiently and reliably verify
> > the identity of registrants.  Compounding this structural flaw, the
> > Transfers Report would have registrars verify transfer requests through
> the
> > collection of registrant personal data.  In addition to raising privacy
> > concerns for registrants, collection of personal data subjects registrars
> to
> > potential liability for the collection, handling and storage of this
> > personal data.  As just about everyone in the industry knows, registrars'
> > obligations under various privacy laws have not been adequately addressed
> in
> > EITHER the Transfers or the WHOIS Reports process.
> >
> > It is also premature to implement the WHOIS Report at this
> > time.  While we support the goal of maintaining accurate WHOIS data, the
> > WHOIS Report seeks to impose registrant identity verification obligations
> > that require registrars to obtain personal data from registrants.  As
> noted
> > above, it is impossible for registrars to efficiently and reliably verify
> > the identity of registrants.  Requiring registrars to collect additional
> > personal data -- data that will not be published along with WHOIS data --
> > raises significant privacy concerns.  Since the WHOIS Task Force's
> original
> > mandate did not require an examination of privacy considerations, these
> > concerns must be addressed before any determination concerning the WHOIS
> > Report implementation can be made.
> >
> > Finally, although the GNSO Council seems to have proposed
> > that the WHOIS task force report not be implemented until the Council has
> > completed its examination of the privacy implications of WHOIS, this
> > condition is not clear and any further implementation of the WHOIS report
> > should specifically be delayed until the Council's privacy study is
> > completed.  This is important because even the proposed modifications to
> > Registrars' bulk WHOIS access agreements, in the final analysis, will
> > neither eliminate prospective misuse of registrant data nor protect
> > consumers from unwelcome marketing solicitations.  Incremental attempts to
> > restrict third party use of bulk WHOIS data do not address the fundamental
> > point (and growing consensus among registrars) that only the elimination
> of
> > third party bulk WHOIS access obligations will protect registrars and
> > consumers alike from misuse of registrant data.
> >
> > In light of the all of the above, I wanted to let you know
> > our continued strong view that it would be premature for the Board to
> > approve and implement either Report until the privacy concerns cited above
> > are fully addressed and understood.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Brian Cute
> >
> >
>