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

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Monday, May 27, 2002, 2:23:22 PM, Loren Stocker wrote:

> But what you forget is that the Gaining registrar is a representative of the
> registrant.

You might have had a point, except for one thing.  Real world
experience.

The problem with your model is that the agency in charge of
enforcement, the Registry, owns the registrar that suffers
from the highest amount of outbound transfers, and has a vested
interest in stemming that tide.  They use a flawed process to
"authenticate" the outbound transfers, and have no motivation to fix
it because all it would do is make losing customers easier for them.

There is no danger to the Verisign owned registrars, because Daddy
will protect them.

This was one of the reasons why the original contact required Verisign
to divest itself of the registrar, which ICANN (and most of the
Registrars who supported it as well) let them get out of doing last
year, with virtually NO additional protections in place.

The facts are, in REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, the method employed by NSI to
verify outbound transfers has caused, and continues to cause on a
DAILY basis, more REAL HARM to registrants, even on a financial level,
than the the few instances of registrars implementing flawed gaining
registrar authentication have caused.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/


--
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