Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion]

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Loren and all assembly members,

Loren Stocker wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Allow me to add my two cents here. The real issue is WHO gets to determine
> Apparent Authority!

  Very good point here Loren.  I think that any and all stakeholders/users,
including registrars >:) should get the opportunity to vote on this issue.  I
believe James Love along with myself and others have suggested this
in an earlier post on this thread today.  I hope you you have registered
yourself Loren as a DNSO GA member in the DNSO Voting registry,
as well as the DNSO GA list and DNOS GA Announce list as soon
as possible so that if such a motion is put forward, that you too will
perhaps have an opportunity to vote on any motion in the GA on this
issue.

>
>
> I'm appalled at the flawed logic of allowing an undisclosed 3rd party -- the
> gaining Registrar -- to determine that I am I; that He speaks for I, or that
> He/or her speaks for him/or her. This is absurd!

  Well of course it is absurd.  Most of us here that are individual, small
and medium size business registrants/stakeholders/users know this.
However in saying so you most likely have registered yourself in Kent
Crispin, Stuart Lynn, Mike Roberts, Joe Sims, Louis Toutons "Kook"
list.  How quaint eh?!  But also how gosh as well!

> There is no definitive
> business relationship with these 3rd parties, where one can say WITH
> CERTAINTY* that the Registrant has an agency agreement with the existing
> Registrar.
>
> My point of reference is the toll-free transfer in the SMS/800. The policy is
> that the gaining RespOrg (Registrar) presents a signed directive from the
> Registrant to the losing RespOrg (Registrar), who then has 48 hours to release
> the number. We then have a help desk to intervene. The magic is that the
> losing RespOrg has a KNOWN-CERTAIN agency relation with the Registrant. The
> gaining RespOrg may not -- and in fact my represent an imposter. Who's to
> know? I, as a Registrant, want my agent --  who knows me -- to validate my
> request.
>
> For those who think this is a hypothetical, I've personally suffered a
> significant fraud where one of my key domains was ripped from my account --
> without my knowledge or permission. My agent (BulkRegister) had nothing to say
> about this and didn't even "notice" me (hence, "undisclosed"). I've discovered
> it is the system that failed; a system allowing some stranger to validate my
> identity invites fraud!

  Yes validating you identity without some protections that you deem
reasonable and are standard practices in the business world not
only invites fraud, but also invites identity theft, which is far and away
worse...

>
>
> All validation should be done by MY AGENT, not someone who may have nothing
> more in-hand than a fraudulent transfer request.

  Exactly right here!

> So what's the significance of
> AA when there is no fiduciary duty to the Registrant? And my agent -- the one
> I've hired to protect my domains -- watches helplessly as my prize domain is
> shipped off to Copenhagen, DK ! True story.
>
> Ross Wm. Rader knows this story and he has advised me that there is no
> proceedure to get this domain back -- thanks to this flawed system.

  I think Ross may be mistaken here.  Contact me offlist for some
legal assistance from Atty's that I know that have had some documented
success in doing this sort of stuff pro bono...

> And there
> are no SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS, as we've proposed to "take" it back! We will
> appeal to you all if by the good graces of the current Registrar -- the 3rd
> Registrar who transfered it in after it had been "whitewashed" and stripped of
> our identity -- has not returned it by next week.

  Don't hold you breath on their good graces here...

>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Loren Stocker
> www.evil.biz
>
> *Certainty only in the first instance. Once a domain is "white washed" all
> bets are off. This is why it is VITAL to hold Registrant info in the Registry
> (not the zone files, just the Registry).
>
> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Elliot, Ross and all assembly members,
>
> Elliot Noss wrote:
>
> > Jeff:
> >
> > You misunderstand my comments. I agree with all you say below. When I talk
> > of Ross "figuring you out" I mean that in a very positive way, as opposed
> to
> > misinterpreting you, which may have lead you to infer rancor.
>
>   I was referring to Ross's recent Rancor towards myself and our members
> not from you Elliot.  I thought I had made that clear (Below) and the other
> day in a post to this forum of Ross's...
>
> >
> >
> > Hope this helps.
>
>   Yeah, it did sorta...  Thanks!  >:)
>
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
> > Cc: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> >
> > > Elliot and Ross,
> > >
> > >   Elliot, first off I would appreciate these or any comments dealing
> > > with actual DNSO and DNSO GA business to be kept on list.
> > > So I am responding here back to the GA in my following response...
> > >
> > >   I, and quite a number of our members have been very supportive
> > > os several ideas that Ross has put forth in the past.  I just can't
> > > figure out why he has such rancor towards myself and on occasions
> > > towards our members.  I and a number of our members are also
> > > not sure if Ross or tucows is on the side of the registrants or
> > > the registrars in what he says below or not.  Hence my specific
> > > clarification (below ) and "Please Advise"... ???
> > >
> > > Elliot Noss wrote:
> > >
> > > > now thats karma. you figure jeff out for once and all and he heartily
> > > > supports you!
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > Cc: "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 4:40 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > > >
> > > > > Ross and all assembly members,
> > > > >
> > > > > Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think we're diving down into semantic extremely quickly (I
> > think) - to
> > > > > > circle back, why is AA "a bad thing" and what is the
> > counter-proposal
> > > > that
> > > > > > replaces it with a "good thing"?
> > > > >
> > > > >   I agree with you here also Ross if you mean or are in around about
> > way
> > > > > suggesting that a counter-proposal would include specific language
> > > > > that "AA" ( Apparent Authority) resides with the Registrant, NOT
> > > > > the Registrar or the Registry for any specific Domain Name...
> > > > > If not, than we, and all of our members that are your, and other
> > > > registrars
> > > > > customers are decidedly NOT in agreement...  Please advise.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Not being a lawyer, perhaps I'm failing to
> > > > > > grasp the significance of some small nuance here, and if that is
> the
> > > > case, I
> > > > > > will certainly defer. *But*, I still believe that the draft that is
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > table is pretty responsible with the exception of the EA
> definition.
> > > > And, as
> > > > > > much as I would like to continue this discussion, I fail to see
> > where it
> > > > > > solves the portability issue that has been hanging around for the
> > last
> > > > > > umpteen months.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The fact is that (tens of thousands of) registrants that *have been
> > > > validly
> > > > > > identified as being legitimately representative of the interests of
> > the
> > > > > > registrant* are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to move
> > domain
> > > > > > names away from a registrar to one that better suits their taste.
> It
> > is
> > > > > > certainly my view that this is the complete scope of the problem
> > that
> > > > must
> > > > > > be fixed - and, no one to date has been able to convincingly
> > demonstrate
> > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Very much agreed here.  This is also true to an extent with Delete
> > > > > as well...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, if this is the case, then why have we spent over a year on an
> > issue
> > > > > > (elapsed DNSO time, not elapsed NC time) that can be very simply
> > fixed
> > > > by
> > > > > > removing the loophole in the contract that allows precious few
> > > > registrars to
> > > > > > play games and wreak havoc on their registrants?
> > > > >
> > > > >   A very good question here as well Ross.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another challenge for the GA - read the registrar constituency
> > proposal
> > > > that
> > > > > > has been on the table since October. (you can find it here
> > > > > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html). If
> > the
> > > > > > consensus is that it sucks and needs to be scrapped and/or
> > significantly
> > > > > > modified, or even slightly improved - then let's discuss that. If
> > this
> > > > > > doesn't sound reasonable, then produce a counter-proposal and get
> it
> > > > into
> > > > > > Dan's hands. Individual proposals carry just as much weight as
> those
> > > > > > generated by groups at this point - the key is to get to the ideas,
> > not
> > > > > > debate which "idea" has more support*. The alternative to an
> > effective
> > > > DNSO
> > > > > > consensus policy process determining what happens on this issue is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > registrars take the proposal off the table, abandon the DNSO
> > consensus
> > > > > > policy process and incorporate the current proposal into a binding
> > Code
> > > > of
> > > > > > Conduct.
> > > > >
> > > > >   A "Code of Conduct" unless incorporated in an amendment to the
> > > > > existing Registrar contract that has been voted upon by any and all
> > > > > registrants that wish to participate, would be huge mistake and
> > > > > likely incur further legal wrangling that is both unnecessary and
> > > > > ill advised...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've pulled everyone off the cc list, for the simple reason that
> > this
> > > > > > message is directed at the DNSO, not at anyone one in particular
> > > > (including
> > > > > > Dan to whom sparked this response)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *That part comes soon enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> > > > > > <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > > > > > <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>;
> > <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> > > > > > <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> > > > > > <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:12 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To be more precise...that gets you only part of the way. There is
> > > > > > > another party to the transaction who may or may not be bound by
> > this.
> > > > > > > and the 'may or may not'...could vary a lot depending on the fact
> > > > > > > pattern.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To be more precise (and perhaps less bold ;) Registrars and
> > > > Registries
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > agreed to the terms under which transfers will be conducted
> > > > according to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > laws in the jurisdictions that I mentioned. Everything else
> > flows
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
> > > > > > > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <mcade@att.com>;
> > > > > > > > <roessler@does-not-exist.org>;
> > <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> > > > > > > > <RJS@lojo.co.nz>; <nick.wood@nom-iq.com>;
> > > > <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>;
> > > > > > > > <crusso@verisign.com>; <mcf@uwm.edu>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
> > > > > > > > <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:53 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority Discussion
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > actually...I beg to differ. The relevant jurisdiction claimed
> > by
> > > > one
> > > > > > > > > party is that. Just wait till it goes to court before making
> > such
> > > > bold
> > > > > > > > > assertions please?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > agreement on the rest.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is an international environment we are dealing with
> > here
> > > > > > folks.
> > > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > > > > > good chunk of the world does not even operate under
> common
> > > > > > law...so
> > > > > > > > > > > agency law as Ross learned it...is totally inapplicable.
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > analogous concepts, yes. but the correspondence and
> > statute,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > caselaw
> > > > > > > > > > > and interpretation and legal foundations...are completely
> > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually no - for 99% of the transfers, the relevant
> > > > jurisdiction is
> > > > > > > > > > Virginia or Delaware.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think Danny Younger makes a good point.  So why not
> > focus on
> > > > > > coming
> > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > with a definition we all want to see inserted into
> > contractual
> > > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > > like the agreements between registrant and registrar,
> etc?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think that's the whole purpose of this exercise. Problem
> > > > being,
> > > > > > > > despite
> > > > > > > > > > the constant criticism from some quarters, there isn't a
> lot
> > of
> > > > > > drafting
> > > > > > > > > > going on. The core of a successful task force will always
> be
> > > > > > competing
> > > > > > > > > > proposals surrounding by cogent debate. Without it, nothing
> > > > > > effective
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > really be accomplished.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I strongly dare the GA to put together a document such as
> > you
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > Dan. The TF needs this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -rwr
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Dan Steinberg
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > > > > > > > > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > > > > > > > > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > > > > > > > > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Dan Steinberg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > > > > > > 35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
> > > > > > > Chelsea, Quebec fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > > > > > > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > > > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > >
>
> Regards,
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html