ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

Re: [registrars] FYI re: Transfers

  • To: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] FYI re: Transfers
  • From: elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:48:20 -0400
  • Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <013f01c7fc69$9ec3b4a0$6501a8c0@cubensis>
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <46F275E2.6050503@tucows.com> <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB5404F6846D@balius.mit> <013f01c7fc69$9ec3b4a0$6501a8c0@cubensis>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Is there a "Deadbeats and Hijackers Constituency" driving these
"clarifications"?

john, try the "average users who get screwed out of using the provider of their choice" constituency. membership is extremely large.

comments inline.

On 21-Sep-07, at 12:08 PM, John Berryhill wrote:


Here is the utterly incomprehensible phrase that jumps out twice in this
document:

the domain name is in the registration
period after expiration,

What is the "registration period after expiration"?


I will not excuse the tortured syntax but I suspect you are smart enough to know this refers to the registrar-defined period, not to exceed 45 days, after expiry and before RGP.



 2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a
valid reason to deny a transfer request.

So, Registrars are to verify whois data UNLESS the Registrant providing fraudulent whois data is requesting transfer of the domain name. In that case, forget about verifying whois data, and let the hi-jacker, who obtained the account login information and changed the WHOIS yesterday, run with the
name.


again, I think you well know that the advisory is intended to deal with minor changes in the whois that are used to create an excuse to deny transfers. the typical situation that we encounter is the combination of these two "security-friendly" provisions:

- renewal time approaches;
- registrant, often a small business, wants to change suppliers and realizes that their whois info needs to be updated (they moved, employee has left/was fired, etc.) and makes the change and then initiates a transfer; - "security-friendly" policy 1 --------> sorry, you made a change and now you can't transfer the name for 60 days. of course this puts them past expiry leading to....... - "security-friendly" policy 2 --------> sorry you are past expiry, you can now only renew not transfer.

a few things are important to note. first, what ICANN is reiterating is the current policy. now I am the last guy to say "a rule is a rule is a rule" but let's be clear that these ARE the current rules, are the result of consensus policy inside the ICANN process (one of the very very few things to actually make it through the process) and were put in place to facilitate registrants freedom to work with the supplier of their choice.

second, numerous registrars simply flout the existing policy and ignore it. ICANN has done nothing. I, and others, have complained about this loudly and publicly. they should be commended (ICANN I commend you!) for issuing an advisory. now they need to follow that with enforcement.

third, the security issues that are raised can be dealt with in a number of alternative ways, too numerous to enumerate here.

fourth, the inability to transfer because of the policy violations happens orders of magnitude more often than hijacking attempts.

last, the industry has done a FANTASTIC job of rectifying wrongdoing. when there is a hijacking of a name of any value registrars work together to rectify. in 2000 I created the indemnity system to allow us to cover NSI's often exposed ass. the network of compliance groups (bigger registrars) and operators (smaller registrars) does an amazing job of righting wrongs. there are simply more efficient and fair ways to do this than by denying transfers in violation of ICANN consensus policy.

the issues raised as "security concerns" are always about fraud. no question these happen on an exceptional basis. trying to correct them by restricting transfers in violation of policy as above is like strip searching every customer leaving wal mart in an attempt to stop shoplifting!

Regards
Elliot Noss



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