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

[Loren Stocker <loren@800.net>]

Hi Ross,

Unforunatly, like many Registrant's I can only jump on occasion. My ideas and
limited time are all I can contribute. Would love a summary off-list of the
existing proposals, if availble (Maybe a link to an article?).

Yet, for us the issue of WHO does transfer validations is 80/20 question. Move
this to my agent and you've solved 80% of the problem! The rest may be give
and take details. Also, it's important not to let NSI's behavior be a
distraction. A good policy with compel them to behave in the best interest of
the Registrant. 

Few recognize that NSI's double-check proceedure is really for the protection
of the Registrant -- given today's crazy system. That being said, the speed,
accuracy, and this silly process of a one-at-a-time confirmation is a very,
very big hassle. Thief's, of course, use NSI's back-door fax process to avoid
being detected. Neither Bulk nor Tucows had -- be default -- any communication
to the Registrant when a domain was stolen! I don't actually know if other
domains have been stolen of my accounts.

As to recovery, Subscriber Rights are essential. Without them we are faced
with a cost prohibitive "court intervention." If anyone hsn't seen the "Impvle
Propoals for Subscriber Rights it is now posted on WWW.EVIL.BIZ.

Best, Loren
Vanity Interanationl



"Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com> wrote:

[Apologies for the stupid formatting, for some reason, my mailer refuses to
quote this message normally]

LS: "Allow me to add my two cents here. The real issue is WHO gets to
determine Apparent Authority!"

This is one of the central issues. Glad to see someone pick up on it
(finally).

LS : "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! 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."

I think that you'll find that if you review the Registrar Constituency
proposal to deal with this (the IRDX document) that this is effectively
dealt with.

The major steps are:

1. Establish credentials
2. Establish relationship
3. Undertake transfer

There are checks and balances each step of the way to ensure that the
registrant, losing registrar and gaining registrar share a balance of power
and responsibility in the transaction which ensures that the proper wishes
of each party are carried out. Could the proposal be more precise? Sure, but
then again, this document represents a consensus of the Registrar
Constituency, so compromises had to made.


LS: "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."

Have you reviewed the PIC/CARE handbook? It shaped much of the process logic
that went into the IRDX proposal. I think that you'll find many of the
positive attributes from "Telco-world" represented. I can't say that I've
reviewed the SMS/800 documents, but I'm guessing that they are largely
similar.


LS: "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. 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."

No procedure currently. As long as the specific registrars who abuse Exhibit
B continue to carry out their anti-registrant/anti-industry practices, this
entire process will continue to be a mess, and short of court intervention,
most registrants in similar situations will continue to be fsck'ed.

-rwr







--
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