DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-transfer] Fw: [registrars] FINAL: Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers: Principles and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars

Comments from a member of the registrar constituency regarding the Interim

Note: We should discuss on our next call what the specific process will be
for considering feedback like this now that the drafting committee has
completed its work items.


"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>
To: "'Ross Wm. Rader'" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: "Kelsie Greear" <kelsie.greear@enom.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] FINAL: Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers:
Principles and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars

> Ross,
> Regarding
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00058.doc
> On 3)e)
> "e) A Losing Registrar may deny a transfer request only in the following
> instances"
> I assume the reasons apply to single transfer requests.
> For example for UDRP, if there is a UDRP dispute for one name, the losing
> registrar cannot deny all transfers, correct?
> Please change "..may deny a transfer request.." to "...may deny a
> transfer request..." to make it clearer.
> If there is a court order to deny all transfer requests, then obviously it
> applies to all.
> As for "evidence of fraud"...  I believe this is the biggest loophole.
> Who judges what is "evidence"? Fraud on who's part?
> If you can clarify what is "evidence" that would be good,
> Maybe something like a third-party (like a judge) says it (whatever it is)
> really is evidence of fraud or something.
> At least make it clear that it is always on a case by case basis:
> Any legitimate transfer cannot be denied because another transfer is not
> legitimate.
> Can this be one of the principals?
> We do not want to give any losing registrar a loophole to block all
> transfers to a gaining registrar.
> Blocking all transfers should be the decision of the registry or some
> authority, not unilaterally done by a registrar.
> On f)"iii) Domain name in Registrar Lock Status"
> the losing registrar does not get the request from the registry and so has
> no way to ack or nack.
> Any name that is on lock at eNom was put there by the registrant and the
> registrant so doing has
> giving standing orders that the name not be transferred.
> So, any registrar doing so is in compliance with vii "vi)Express objection
> from the Registrant or Administrative contact" in the section above,
> correct?
> In disputes section where is "9.a.i above."  should that be "8.a.1"?
> The section numbers need to be re-worked they are confusing to me.
> I guess the document just got longer than expected.
> How about a consistent 1 then 1.1 then 1.1.1 then etc for
> subsections?
> The dispute part talks about single names.
> I suspect disputes will arise for large qty of names.
> Hope I'm wrong on that.
> On page 7
> 3)d)(3)
> "email address matching Registrant or Administrative Contact email address
> found in authoritative Whois database"
> You mean an email exchange, correct?  Not just an email addresses from
> someone that matches the contact, as that can easily be forged.
> In this same section, wouldn't possession of auth-code be at least as good
> form of ID that the possessor of the code is the registrant.
> I'll checkout the rest in detail, but the rest looks good on my 1st scan.
> Excellent work.
> And thank you for your time.
> Feel free to post to transfers TF list.
> Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:16 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] FINAL: Inter-Registrar Domain Name Transfers:
> Principles and Processes for Gaining and Losing Registrars
> I would like to draw your attention to the final policy draft concerning
> transfers. It can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00570.html
> The Task Force will be soliciting formal public comment shorlty. As TF
> I will also be soliciting the input of the constituency in parallel,
> effective immediately. Please feel free to share your comments with me via
> this list or offline via email or voice via any of the numbers below.
> Thanks,
>            -rwr
> -------------------------------
> Ross Wm. Rader
> Director, Innovation & Research
> Tucows Inc.
> tel: 416.538.5492
> fax: 416.531.1257

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