DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-transfer] Specific comments from Registrars as promised...

To: nc-transfer@dnso.org
cc: registrars@dnso.org


Please find below a summary of the "out-of-band" commentary that I have
received from registrars over the last few weeks. I would like to discuss
these on our next TF call (not tomorrow, but the next one) in order to
ensure that they are accurately entered into the record and appropriately
dealt with in the final report. I am sure that we will be able to add more
to this list coming out of tomorrow's call, but that we are getting close to
fully hearing what the broad range of concerns is.


Note that some of these comments come from the same parties (there is no
relationship between the # of comments and # of commenters.)

Shanghai Registrar Constituency Member Feedback
- doesn't adequately protect losing registrar from fraudulent transfers out.
- does not provide redress to registrants in cases where the transfers have
gone awry.
- recommendations expensive and difficult (or impossible) to implement.
- "silence" does not equal assent in some regions.
- language issues need to be closely looked at.
- no consensus on the registrar_hold v. registrar_lock question.
- processes should be as protocol based as possible.

- need further clarifications regarding temporal distinctions surround
payment/non-payment clauses.
- process requires a technical "undo" function
- auto-locking needs to be examined and specifically dealt with.
- more work needs to be done regarding EPP specific provisions.
- we need to see what the standard form of authorization looks like.
- the terms "current" & "pending" need to be defined.
- we need to understand what the timing of "current" & "pending"
registration periods specifically is.
- arbitration needs to be fleshed out more.

11/11/02 Registrar Constituency Member Feedback
- current recommendations restrict a registrar from verifying with the
registrant that the registrant did indeed authorize/request the transfer.
- when a registrant loses a domain name as the result of a bad transfer, it
is a big problem. The current recommendations don't go far enough to
ameliorate this potential condition.
- current recommendations are based on whois data, which we know already
isn't very accurate.
- transfers process should be used as a mechanism to encourage registrants
to keep their data up to date (inaccurate data = no transfer) while ensuring
that registrars can't abuse the process (incessant n'acking).


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

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

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