[atlarge-discuss] Transfer Task Force conference calls

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Dear Marilyn,
I submit the following comments to the NC Transfer Task Force with respect
to its draft documents and in advance of the Teleconferences, which I will
try to join.

With reference to the Base Document
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00040.doc:-

REF:  Clause 3h of Principals.
Please record my objection to the apparent deletion of the phrase "maintain
minimum standards of consumer protection" from the latest draft,
specifically from the following sentence:- " IRDX processes MUST maintain
minimum standards of consumer protection, while taking take into account the
legal, linguistic and cultural differences of the domain name registration
market, registrars, and Registered Name holders." Why has this been removed
exactly?

REF: Gaining Registrar Narrative Processes. Clauses (m) and (n). Inspection:
What blacklist? quote: "It is recommended that registrars implement both a
manual and automated check. The automated portion should consist of a check
against a blacklist of domains that must not be transferred.  [Note to
Draft: Should this become an optional provision?]"

Please explain the phrase "blacklist of names" whether this is to be an
optional clause or not, it is too vague to be useful. How does one get on
this blacklist for example?

The same concerns of vagueness apply to REF: "Gaining Registrar does not
approve transfer request - this can occur for any number of reasons,
including suspicious transaction patterns." The Registrant is entitled to
know what are the "number of reasons" that may deny them the service they
seek, since it affects them by resulting in a denial. Please remember that
there is an element of public service in the provision of domain name
services, including transfers, which, if they are going to be denied by
ICANN's own policy, and applied by all accredited Registrars, ought at least
to be explained in terms that the Registrants themselves and the general
public can understand how such a policy is to their benefit, don't you
think?  Are these reasons specified elsewhere in the documents?

REF: Losing Registrar minimum attribute check - Clause (r)
I have already strongly objected to item (iii). How does a Registered name
Holder prove to the Registrar that they are not a pending bankruptcy if no
public database exists for their region? And why should they have to if
their fees are paid?

quote: "Upon receipt of the transfer announcement sent by the registry, the
Losing Registrar may undertake to check that the domain registration is not
subject to one of the following conditions:

i)	Situations described in the Domain Dispute Resolution Policy
ii)	A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
iii)	Dispute over the identity of the Registered Name holder
iv)	Request to transfer sponsorship occurs in the first 60 days after the
initial registration with the Registrar.

What really concerns me is that because this clause is sloppy, it could lead
into Individual domain name registrants being bound by  Registrars to
disclose personal and private information so that any Registrar may then
undertake whatever financial investigations of their clients as they see
fit. I appreciate that is not the intention, but  an abusive Losing
Registrar (who cannot possibly gain access to bankruptcy information for all
registrants worldwide) could then use this clause as an excuse to deny
transfer, in which case, we are back to square one.

My principal argument against clause this has always been that provided all
fees in relation to the name (as opposed to any additional services) are
paid, it is no concern of the Registrar what the Registrant's financial
standing may be, and that Registrars are not entitled to have access to
privileged information about individual registrants that is not already in
the public domain.

Where you (Ross) do seem to have got it right is in the document, "General
Obligations and Provisions", which states in much more precise terms what
the Registrar must produce as evidence against the Registrant in order to
deny transfer, which I think is a significant improvement to protect
individual rights over what is in the Base document.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/doc00043.doc

quote: "General Obligations & Provisions

f)	A Losing Registrar may deny a transfer request only in the following
instances;
i)	Evidence of fraud
ii)	UDRP action
iii)	Court order
iv)	Dispute over the identity of the Registrant or Administrative Contact
v)	No payment for previous registration period (including credit card
charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for current
registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired; in all such
cases, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status prior the
denial of transfer.
vi)	Express objection from the Registrant or Administrative contact

g)	Instances when the Losing Registrar may not deny a transfer include, but
are not limited to;
i)	Nonpayment for a pending registration period
ii)	No response from the Registrant or Administrative contact unless the
Losing Registrar shows evidence of Express Objection from the Registrant or
Administrative Contact as described in (x) [note to draft: Express Objection
clause under allowable reasons for denial]
iii)	Domain name in Registrar Lock Status
iv)	Domain name registration period time constraints other than during the
first 50 days of initial registration.
v)	General payment defaults between registrar and business partners /
affiliates in cases where the registrant for the domain in question has paid
for the registration.

h)	Failure to maintain a publicly accessible Whois on the part of the Losing
Registrar or Whois records containing blatantly false contact information
will negate all grounds for denying a transfer.

Finally, I'm a little confused as to whether these two documents are
expected to fit together as they are written, because certainly they don't
seem to mesh with respect to describing the circumstances under which a
Losing Registrar may deny transfer.

Regards,
Joanna Lane
Chair, ICANNAtLarge.com







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de