Re: [ga] Transfers - Bankruptcy Clause
I don't know if this bankruptcy language existed before the TF, as
William suggests, or if it was created because of the TF. However, I
don't think it matters.
This bankruptcy language allows Registrars the privilege to hold a
domain name hostage, as collateral for an unrelated debt. I don't
think that this kind of concept has been widely supported in the past.
In fact, I think that many of us, including some Registrars, have
viewed the holding of a domain name hostage, for any reason, as
repulsive and out of order.
I don't think it is appropriate for Registrars, resellers or others to
have the right to cross collateralize a domain name registration for
any reason. IOW, and for instance, since you didn't pay for the
renewal of your WLS service and you are pending bankruptcy (or the
bankruptcy clause is otherwise "spun" to support it), we're going to
retain control of your domain name - you can't transfer it, change the
name servers, etc. Perhaps this is a "far fetched" example or perhaps
it is not so far fetched.
If there is a valid and ethical business reason why this language
should be included, please provide it to the list. If the reasoning
makes business sense and is supported, the issue become moot.
Otherwise, the bankruptcy language should be deleted.
Similarly to William's firm, we are a reseller, too, and the
registrant of several domain names. I don't think that fact
invalidates our view on the matter or cuts across any bias on this
Further, I don't think the urgency noted is justification to ignore
the inequity of this bankruptcy language and its potential for abuse.
Furthermore, although I fully support the objective of the Transfer
TF, we all recognize that some Registrars which currently abuse the
Transfer process also contravene the Registrars Agreement with
impunity. Therefore, having a well reasoned and supported position may
well be much more beneficial in the short and long term, than being in
a rush to go fight windmills in the short term.
Friday, April 05, 2002, 9:17:31 PM, William X Walsh <email@example.com> wrote:
WXW> Friday, Friday, April 05, 2002, 6:42:51 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>> Right now, I am trying to hear Registrant voices, and you're a reseller,
>> sorry, but your opinion that the TF is incapable of dealing with more than
>> one problem at the same time is noted. The view from here is that we have
>> the opportunity to remove an area of future abuse as well as sorting out an
>> existing one after the event, which can be done by a simple stroke of the
>> pen to delete the clause. This wouldn't adversely affect anyone and if
>> registrars want to introduce such a clause, frankly, IT CAN WAIT.
WXW> The clause has been there for how long alread, Joanna?
WXW> They don't have to wait for anything.
WXW> This task force was created for a specific purpose, which is vastly
WXW> more important than your wish to be rid of this clause. Anything you
WXW> do now which could hold up a resolution of the real issue this TF is
WXW> dealing with, only causes further harm to registrants.
WXW> Frankly, you are the one suggesting a change, the burden to prove that
WXW> the change is broadly supported and in the best interests of the
WXW> internet community is on you. Feel free to get to work on your best
WXW> practices format to try and do that, independent of the real and
WXW> pressing issues facing this task force right now.
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html