ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

Re: [ga] Request for Issues Report

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, NA Discuss <na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Request for Issues Report
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 07:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=rwTY10Qm5VumYky9wqiI4OApCoRN/vL/CwUSWz5Aeh/wkabZTxxA57TF8XfXfHU6cv7QKkn3v/rgLcNOkTw6jhBM4Kg6WwfgFxXX8ycQ4NE29NWVHpvvMe24K9riyZSdTSDg/fwcuEcbouKnhrSiXcCMlkd/ecr7cs0mL0mMEJ0=;
  • In-reply-to: <565787.32450.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As I understand this simply;
   
  You recognize an innapropriate loophole in the registration system which has the potential and in fact has been abused by registrars.
   
  You suggest that a change in policy/contractual obligations can correct this problem.
   
  The reason for this is to better protect the registrants who have no representation yet are clearly valued and present here.
   
  Would you please link us to the referenced policies and directly to the sections or paragraphs where you would suggest changes be made?
   
  I believe this is something that the GA can do. I think we can reach a reasonable consensus and propose a reasonable solution to ICANN.
   
  Again thank you for your bringing important matters to the forefront.
   
  Eric

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Having watched the RegisterFly debacle unfold on a
day-by-day basis for quite some time I have come to
realize that we have a need to develop new policies to
better protect the registrant community.

In particular, I have read many allegations along
these lines: "A number of domains were ?hijacked? by
RF changing domain contact details".

This type of transfer is not covered by the Consensus
Policy on Transfer of Registrations Between Registrars
because it does not happen "between" registrars but
rather through a single registrar. 

What we need is a policy to govern transfers between
registrants at a single registrar so that the
interests of all parties to the transfer may be
protected.

We don't want to have registrants at the mercy of the
capricious whims of a rogue actor. If a change of
registrant is enacted in such a manner, a process must
be in place to dispute improper changes to the
registration record.

I call upon this community to request an issues report
on this subject so that the GNSO may develop
appropriate policy.

regards,
Danny Younger





____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121


       
---------------------------------
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>