ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

[ga] RE: Domain seller leaves thousands in limbo

  • To: "Vinton G. Cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] RE: Domain seller leaves thousands in limbo
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:50:36 -0800 (PST)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=JUgKd8NKJgOW10H+Z+b7JgowMH3BemFjG9GGDjvrL5lO+mpTyer734LlBLEN6FoJBbbnrS0bOQobbp8AWHjtLyhp1maB9qRxnr2VkPIh3fqTq6AwSixZJnPN8rXLjkzNwCYGNmr7ZrprAWwEOpzQurRS+YQQSExnBxDpKlcenYA= ;
  • In-reply-to: <0ID400018N8CYF@dgismtp05.mcilink.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Vint,
 
>From their website:  "Firevision has been a member of the UK domain name authority, Nominet, for over 2 years. Firevision was one of the first UK resellers for the ICANN-accredited registrar, OpenSRS, and has been registering cheap dot.com, dot.net and dot.org domains since June 2000. Firevision began registering the new .info domain names in October 2001."
http://www.firevision.net/Questions/Questions3.html
 
With regard to escrow policy, I thought that a policy is already incorporated into the RAA (section 3.6).  The issue in my mind is whether the policy is actually being enforced.  I understand that Staff are scheduled to soon release a new version of the RAA for consideration.  Perhaps based on your communications with Staff you could advise if any changes to the data escrow portion of the Agreement are planned to be put forth in this new iteration.
 
Finally, regarding registrant protection and reassurance, I'll be happy to flesh out some ideas in the next few days, but don't be surprised if a request for a registrants constituency is part of the proposal :)
 
Best wishes,
Danny
 


"Vinton G. Cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Danny, is Firevision a nominet reseller? Also on the receivership matter, I have been given to understand that the registrar failed to show up for a court hearing and was placed in receivership.

 

However, the point here is to ask what we can collectively do to provide more safety and protection for registrants who really want the system to perform reliably and to allow them the flexibility to transfer accounts and so on. Some of this safety might come from much better tools and policies for escrow of critical data. Maybe some resilience might come from having foster homes for registrants whose registrars (or registries???) have ceased to operate. To some extent, the introduction of competitive markets increases some risks of business failures but the absence of competition has its not so good side effects and doesn?t assure that failures won?t happen (sorry for the double negative there). 

 

If you have some ideas that would flesh out a theme of registrant protection and reassurance, I?d be interested to hear it. 

 

Vint

 

 

Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
+1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax
vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx 


---------------------------------


From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:46 PM
To: vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Domain seller leaves thousands in limbo


 

Article by Kieren McCarthy in the Register:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/08/firevision_domain_customess_in_limbo/


 


No doubt, we'll be seeing more and more of these stories as registrars and re-sellers fall into receivership (see the following URL for another registrar receivership story:  http://webserv5.dodora.net/litigation/ ).  I'd love to know the ICANN view on such matters...



---------------------------------


Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 




		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.


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