DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [registrars] Update

Dear Collegues,

I fully support Paul and Richard in this way.
We have many complaints regarding bad and unfair pratice which keep
confusing to our customers.

1) a bad Whois request based on not real time basis and lack of information
2) bad NS upgrade and modification from the registry
3) a pending and grace period which have never approved by registrars
4) deactivation notice to customer even the names has been transfered to
another registrar
5) Altavista and yahoo attitude regarding a keyword cyberskatting

We need to create a best communication etc...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>
To: "Registrars@Dnso.Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 7:57 PM
Subject: [registrars] Update

> First, I would like to welcome two new registrars that joined the
> constituency: Eric Schatzlein with schlund + partner AG and Steve Lee of
> Attached please find the power point presentation that one of the FBI
> personnel presented in Reston a couple of weeks ago.  An important
> number for registrars to be aware of is : +1-202-323-3205.  This is the 24
> hour Watch and Warning hotline, the FBI has representatives around the
> that interact with their national counter-parts. For any registrar having
> problems with domain name hijacking/theft or credit card fraud please use
> this number. I am going to work with the FBI to identify contact persons
> local governments around the world so every registrar can have a local law
> enforcement contact. Any help from registrars outside the US would be
> greatly appreciated.
> With regard to the proposed code of conduct that Richard Lindsey has
> circulated, one thing that was reinforced during our meeting in Reston was
> the need for proper record documentation and retention (see attached power
> point presentation). Law enforcement finds these records extremely
> in crime fighting. In fact, the FBI commented favorably on the centralized
> record retention of NSI and said that it was in line with other corporate
> document retention programs. I do not believe that the work Richard and
> rest of the Code of Conduct Task Force has undertaken is designed to limit
> anyone's specific business model, but is just designed to reinforce
> business practices to maintain the creditability of registrar industry.
> As Yokohama approaches there is a lot of work that still remains. I will
> have a draft agenda out in the next couple of days. I will be leaving for
> Seoul for an ICANN workshop prior to Yokohama tomorrow, so e-mail will be
> the best way to get a hold of me.  Listed below is a survey that Paul Kane
> drafted. I agree with Paul and believe that it is important for us to
> our voice. Any comments or feedback please provide.
> With regard to our primary meeting, in light of the potential sticking
> points with the Code of Conduct, I would like to ask Richard if we could
> meet prior to the scheduled registrar meeting to get as much work done as
> possible and not to distract from the other issues that the constituency
> must address during its regular meeting.
> Mike
> P.S. I still owe the list a power point presentation that the other FBI
> agent presented and the one page handout that Phil Sbarbaro did on
> language: service v.s. product in connection with Reston meeting.
> PAUL KANE's Proposed Survey
> As Yokahama approaches I would value your input in bringing together
> some real statistics to demonstrate to the internet community that the
> registrar constituency is a significant voice and wants to build bridges
> between the various other groups..
> We have all heard claims of "I represent 30 companies" from one speaker
> at an ICANN conference and another person stands up and says "we provide
> service to 1,000 customers" etc... now I think it is the Registrars turn
> to say "hey... we provide have x million customers and this is what they
> are saying to us........"
> I think we need to say a few key points:
> i) collectively, the constituency provides service to ??? million
> individuals, and ??? million businesses.
> ii) the constituency works with ????, 000 ISPs
> iii) x% of our customers are happy with the service they receive
> representing x million users.
> Our customers are telling us they want:
> i)
> ii)
> iii)
> To meet the needs of our customers and to ensure we work with other
> constituency collegues we propose the following:
> a)
> b)
> c)
> If fellow registrars think this strategy is a good idea I would suggest
> the summary wants to be short, punchy and backed up with tangible
> evidence of how the Registrars are seeking to address and work with the
> other constituencies.
> Time is short and to avoid sensitivities over disclosure of commercial
> information it would be helpful to keep the statistics conservative and
> may I suggest one person coordinates the statistics.....
> Thoughts??
> Best
> Paul

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