DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-transfer] draft resolution on transfers

Dear Marilyn, 

I must also take issue with this proposed resolution.  First, the task force
had one teleconference, quite limited when you consider the ratio of
available time to interested speakers, and I truly don't think that can be
deemed sufficient to conclude the work of this group, particularly since we
are still waiting for other materials.  Secondly, I presume that a vote of
the task force will be taken prior to submitting this to the NC and I am
concerned that everyone have ample time to be heard before then.  I for one
am not available Sunday a.m., as I only get in late in the afternoon.

Lastly, as a member of the gTLD Registry Consitituency, I have objections to
the substance of the resolution.  While I do applaud the efforts of everyone
who has worked towards trying to come up with a standard that is beneficial
to all, I have the following concerns:

1.   As others have stated and as you have acknowledged, the term "apparent
authority" remains undefined.  As a Registry representative, I can tell you
from interactions with my customers that there is widespread disagreement on
this issue, and to suggest that this is something that can be easily worked
out later is very problematic.  This is an integral part of the transfer
issue and should not be treated lightly.

2.  The specific and limited number of reasons for which a losing registrar
can n'ack a request, according to this proposal, does not allow for every
situation and accordingly is detrimental to the registrant.  Presently, the
RRA contains a list of reasons for which a losing registrar MAY n'ack, but
it does not purport to be an exhaustive list and such, it leaves room
unusual circumstances that may arise.  It's important to note that there is
an underlying presumption of good faith and fair dealing among registrars
and because of that such circumstances are able to be worked out (for the
most part) while still in keeping with the terms of the agreement.  This
proposal however, would take that away. 

I have dealt with a number of cases of "domain hijacking", and in fact just
learned of a new one this week.  This is one type of situation where the
registrant may not be protected by the registrars' proposal and I would
offer that there are probably many others.

3.  Section 5.k.11 of the registrars' paper defines an acceptable type of
electronic "authorization" as being a "copy of the electronic communication
sent TO the Registered Name Holder...in reply to or confirming the initial
domain name transfer request".   This is in direct contradiction to the
terms of the current policy which requires that express authorization must
be FROM the registrant or one having apparent authority.  To allow otherwise
could be devastating for many unsuspecting registrants, not to mention very
difficult for a Registry, as party to the agreement, to enforce.

I'd be very interested in hearing other's comments, but most importantly,
I'd like to again repeat that there are many important unresolved issues
that warrant much more discussion by the whole task force before any such
resolution is submitted.  

Thank you.

Christine A. Russo, VeriSign Global Registry Services. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:42 PM
To: 'Transfer TF'; 'Mike Palage'; 'Ross Rader'; 'Tim Denton'; 'Bruce
Beckwith'; 'Elana Broitman'
Subject: [nc-transfer] draft resolution on transfers

Dear colleagues

I apologize for the delay in posting. In this case, I am merely delayed by
my own list of priorities, but I apologize to you since you were expecting a
posting from me.

Please give consideration to the attached and submit any comments either to
the list, or to me. I will be out of the office tomorrow and offline much of
the day until late p.m. when I will be able to respond to email; I expect to
arrive in Mr. Saturday late p.m. and be online then.   

I have afternoon meetings on Sunday back to back. 

If folks are available Sunday mid am, I could manage a short discussion
around 11:00 a.m. Let me know. Your feedback is very useful if we are to
finalize a resolution which has clarity. 


>  <<TR-TF transfers resolution-draft.doc>> 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>