RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 19 Feb 2003 at 14:55, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a 
> > registry has set an 
> > initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the 
> > registrant to the 
> > full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars 
> > continuing to 
> > screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers 
> > dispute resolution 
> > process.   
> 
<snip>

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions...  "

> 
> The task force envisioned a process whereby a registrant would file a
> dispute through a registrar. The registrar would then be able to
> determine which party would be best suited to resolve the dispute - the
> registry or a third party. 

In such a dispute, both the registry and registrar are interested parties 
and should have nothing to do with choosing an arbitrator or mediator.  
There should also be no forced arbitration such as UDRP which screws the 
consumer and is biased in its very structure and rules.

There is no reason why the registrar has to
> first go to the registry when filing a dispute. The two benefits to this
> approach - first, it incents the registries to provide the service
> competitively. There is nothing that forces me to pay anything to a
> registry that has priced themselves out of the market. In fact, I can shop
> the dispute around and pick the recognized third party resolver that will
> give me the best price (which comes with some downsides as the UDRP points
> out, but I'm not sure that forum shopping will get us much here other than
> potentially, a price break.) Second, it ensures that a non-biased party is
> hearing the dispute. If, for some reason, the registry is potentially
> conflicted, the registry won't be put in a position where it *must* hear a
> dispute and be conflicted.
> 

The RGP, in concept, was a reasonable idea until it was perverted with 
totally outrageous fees.  I can't see where this forced dispute 
arbitration would be any different.  It's certainly a boon to providers, 
but does nothing at all for anyone else, except perhaps registrars and 
registries.

If there is a dispute over a transfer, providers (registrars/registries) 
should be expected to handle it, period.  If they do not, there are legal 
avenues.  If there is a dispute method to be determined, it should be, in 
all cases, handled by a third party and be non-binding.  There have been 
many errors made by registrars and "glitches" in the system(s).  I would 
like to know how many of these are caused by registrant error and how many 
are caused by registrars/registries.   Why should a registrant have to 
spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when there is a transfer mess?  Who 
will benefit?  Registrars should be held accountable for transfers, as 
should registries.  If an error is made - fix it.

> Third parties have quoted roughly $1500 per dispute to sort these things
> out - I am sure the registries could be persuaded to do this on a cost
> recovery basis which would make them substantially cheaper than this...

Like RGP?  Ludicrous.

> 
> Perhaps someone that actually runs a registry could answer this question
> more specifically ;)

That's pretty simple.  If a registrant files a complaint about a transfer, 
follow the trail and fix the problem.  If it was fraud, get law 
enforcement involved.  If it was an error, reverse it and refund any money 
collected.

> 
> Lastly, it wasn't envisioned that this would be a chargable service for
> registrars any more than processing UDRP complaints is - therefore your
> concerns that Registrars would surcharge the community to death are not
> likely to come into play. I understand why you feel this way, but I don't
> see it really coming into play on this particular point...time could prove
> me wrong however.

I think time (a short time) will prove you very wrong.

Leah


--
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