<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt secondary market for domain names
- To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt secondary market for domain names
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:27:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Eric and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> Certainly Georges choices in terms he used could have been better,
but publicly scolding him</P>
<P>for such is a bit over the top in that the point he was raising and general
theme should have been</P>
<P>easily understood. <BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 0px">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jun 23, 2010 5:58 PM <BR>To: George Kirikos
<GKIRIKOS@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO GA Mailing List <GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: Re:
[ga] Proposed ICANN "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt
secondary market for domain names <BR><BR><ZZZHTML><ZZZHEAD>
<STYLE type=text/css><ZZZ!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></STYLE>
</ZZZHEAD><ZZZBODY>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE:
12pt">
<DIV>George,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The only way to say this is: This email is innacurate, poorly
written and probably does more harm than helps with understanding. Your
flippant use of words like transfer and "buying a domain name" lacks insight
and understanding of the complexities involved. </DIV>
<DIV>Invoking is not understandable when you use it in terms of policy.
George this is a headline not serious thought.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE:
12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT
size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> George Kirikos
<gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B>
GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT:
bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wed, June 23, 2010 9:10:59 AM<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [ga] Proposed ICANN
"Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" could disrupt secondary market for domain
names<BR></FONT><BR><BR>The ITRP just had a conference call, and I was
basically ganged up on for pointing out all the flaws in the proposed ETRP
(Expedited Transfer ot Reverse Policy).<BR><BR>How will businesses and
consumers be affected when folks can simply undo a legitimate transfer "at
will", without due process, within 6 months? How will an escrow work if the
prior owner can simply claim "hijacking" and undo a transfer, when it's simply
a case of seller's remorse? We see irrevocable transfers in the real estate
industry, and that market works fine, because people are *proactive* about
security. Here, the folks pushing for this flawed proposal seek to implement a
*reactive* policy that *will* be misused.<BR><BR>I'm totally appalled at how
they want to create a huge loophole in policy, that will have collateral damage
which is much bigger than the "problem" they're trying to solve.<BR><BR>A
transcript of what went down should be available later
at:<BR><BR>http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12502<BR><BR>To see why this policy
is flawed, consider the following scenario:<BR><BR>1. <A
href="http://example.com/"; target=_blank>Example.com</A> is registered at
GoDaddy, to Party A.<BR>2. Party B agrees to buy the domain name for $1,000,
and transfers it to Tucows legitimately.<BR>3. Party B builds up a large
website, investing millions of dollars (perhaps it was Microsoft, who has
bought domain names like <A href="http://kin.com/"; target=_blank>kin.com</A>
and <A href="http://docs.com/"; target=_blank>docs.com</A> in the aftermarket,
or B&N, who bought <A href="http://nook.com/"; target=_blank>nook.com</A> in
the secondary market).<BR>4. 6 months later, Party A gets seller's remorse, and
decided to invoke the policy, claiming the domain name was hijacked, and the
domain name is returned immediately to GoDaddy (the original registrar), under
the full control of Party A again.<BR>5. Tucows (the new registrar) and Party B
can't do anything about it, to dispute the use of this policy, as its currently
proposed!<BR><BR>(there exists a "TDRP" Transfer Dispute Resolution Procedure
in place now that *does* have due process, but some folks seem to think it's
not good enough)<BR><BR>Fact: If there's a real dispute, one side is lying! It
should be up to a court to decide, not simply getting involved and undoing a
legitimate transfer! Remember, the original registrar (GoDaddy in the example
above) had every opportunity to authenticate Party A's desire to transfer the
domain name to Tucows (where Party B wants it to be) BEFORE the domain name
took place! The domain could be unlocked only after talking to Party A by phone
first, for example. Or some other "executive lock" procedure (VeriSign lock is
just one example of many). The EPP code could be sent by SMS, for example.
There are myriad ways to be proactive about security, and I'm 100% in favour of
those.<BR><BR>The workgroup pretends fraud exists only by "domain hijackers",
and seems incapable of seeing fraud within the community of domain sellers. One
need only look at the case of Nelson Brady and SnapNames, to see what kinds of
frauds are possible. It's bad enough when you have to deal with that kind of
fraud, but then to add a brand new risk, of legitimate transfers being undone
simply upon a *claim* of hijacking??!!? (not *proof* or a court order or some
other due process)<BR><BR>I find it simply unreal that these serious concerns
are not being taken seriously, and are being brushed aside by this
workgroup.<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>George
Kirikos<BR>http://www.leap.com/<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></ZZZBODY>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey
A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300+k members/stakeholders
and growing, strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom"
-<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance
of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore
Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll
Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA.
- (Over 300+k members/stakeholders and growing, strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the
law is the greatest freedom" -<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit
should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the
accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P;
the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less
than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States
v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827</ZZZHTML></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|