Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1006
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, January 19 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1006

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:16:38 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

Friday, Friday, January 18, 2002, 1:49:51 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 21:15 17/01/02 -0800, William X Walsh said:

>>More accurately, a reseller of a registrar  :)
>>
>>I'm sure you will understand why I make a point of noting the
>>distinction.  Unlike Registrars, resellers of registrar services have
>>no voice inside ICANN.  The registrars constituency won't have us, the
>>business constituency wants rules to bar us from there, and there just
>>isn't any other place for us to be heard.

> and the Individual Domain Name Holders  Constituency is not the right place 
> either...

There is no such constituency.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:58:00 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

> Quite frankly, we are not registrars.  And with so much of what is
> going in the domain policy arena effecting us as directly as it is, I
> think it is time the non-registrar registration service providers have
> some say and input in the process.  Particularly because many of the
> things that may be acceptable to the registrars, may have a deep
> impact on our businesses and on the service provided to our customers.
>
> You surely see where I am going with this.  I think a new constituency
> is required where non-ICANN Accredited domain registrars and
> registration providers are represented.  I've been thinking about this
> for some time now, especially during the whole "domain transfer"
> controversy that Verisign started.
>
> I've decided that its time to do more than think about it and have
> started exploring the subject more.  Anyone interested in this, and
> who is a qualified registration provider, should contact me off list.

You make some great points here William. Looking at the DNSO Constituencies,
there really is no appropriate home for the Intermediate Supplier
Stakeholders. The closest that I can see are the Business and ISP
constituencies, however each of those carries specific features that may not
be desirable or appropriate in representing the interests of the ISS's. For
instance, contrast the composition (and the bylaws that support the
composition) of the Business Constituency v. the Registrar Constituency. One
has a heterogeneous membership, the other does not. The BC's mission and
supporting bylaws promote a diversity of interests and a limitation on
concentrations of interests in specific industry sectors. This would make it
very difficult for ISS's to find an effective and representative voice
there. The ISPC, on the other hand, has a much more specific mission and
engenders homogeneous participation. It is unclear however whether or not
ISS's would qualify for membership within the ISPC (see
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ispcp/ISPCP.Articles.html for more
details). It is most certainly worthwhile that someone investigate whether
or not the interests of the ISS's and those of the ISPC are compatible and
if not, whether the ISPC would be willing to accomodate an extended
membership consisting of firms that don't necessarily qualify under their
current bylaws.

If this isn't possible, then it sounds like there is an excellent case to be
made for the creation of a new constituency that allows for effective
representation of the ISS's.

The reason that I bring this course of action up as a suggestion is because
of the processes set forth by the Names Council outlining how new
constituencies are created. A series of criteria are set forth that must be
addressed prior to the consideration of the creation of a new constituency.
Some of these criteria are;

    3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the
proposed new constituency and existing constituencies, the General Assembly
and other parts of ICANN?
    5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides
recognition of a new constituency?
    5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need
could be fulfilled?
    7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency
taken to seek support from existing constituencies?
    8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on
existing constituencies?

(the entire set of criterion can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCprocedures-v4.0.html almost at the
very bottom of the document.)

It is important that all of these questions are answered effectively - some
of those above can be most effectively answered by asking the other
constituencies if the ISS have a home in the existing constituencies and, if
not, if they would support the formation of a new constituency. It may turn
out that existing structures may suit your purposes quite nicely without
having to invest the time necessary to create a completely new constituency.

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:09:02 -0600
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: [GTLD Registries List] FW: .BIZ Transfer Policy

Jeff,

Thanks for your e-mail.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the
subject, but perhaps before jumping to the conclusion that you already have,
please consider the following:

1)  NeuLevel has every interest in finding a workable solution to the
problems associated with transfers between Registrars.   NeuLevel, a
subsidiary or NeuStar, has since the very beginning supported the Registrars
position in doing everything possible to enhance the portability of domain
names.  In fact, NeuStar has a long history of enhancing portability of
telephone numbers for all of North America.  For example, because of
NeuStar, all United States consumers can switch local telephone companies
without having to change their phone numbers because we maintain the Local
Number Portability database.  The parallels between the telephone industry
and domain names are striking, and NeuStar intends to apply the same
philosophies to the Internet space.  

2)  It is not in the interest of any new Registry, including NeuLevel, to
inhibit portability.  To be blunt, transfers are a revenue event for the
Registry (because an additional term must be bought with every transfer), so
it is very much in a Registry's interest to see that the transfer process is
as easy as possible.  That being said, we do not want to allow the transfers
to take place until the proper secure systems are in place, and the ultimate
consumer is protected.  

3)  We believe the mess in .com, .net and .org has taken way too long to
resolve and often the consumer is being left out of the debate.  With the
new method that NeuLevel is proposing to be adopted, consumers will be able
to easily transfer their domain names by giving their "auth-info" tokens to
the "gaining registrars" and see their transfers take place immediately --
No e-mails from the losing registrar, no auto-nacks, no games -- no hassle
to the consumer.  If a registrant presents a valid token to the gaining
registrar when a transfer is requested, the Registry knows that the transfer
has been authorized by the Registrant.  There will be no waiting periods and
thus, no room for a losing registrar to "game" the system.

4)  Before this can happen, however, registrars and registrants must be
educated on how to generate a token, how to maintain the security of a
token, and how to recover a lost token, through the EPP Protocol used by the
"thick registries."  This takes time.  We are aggressively engaging in such
an educational campaign now and as soon as the Registrars and Registrants
can be educated, you will see a far more superior and secure transfer
mechanism than anything that currently exists.
  
Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
NeuLevel, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Building X
Sterling, VA 20166
e-mail: [email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:45 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; General Assembly of
the DNSO
Subject: Re: [GTLD Registries List] FW: .BIZ Transfer Policy

Jeff and all,

  I am afraid that I would have to disagree with Richards contention
here with respect to Transfer of Domain names.  His long winded
explanation after stating his and it seems Nuelevels position on this
issue is also a bit suspicious in and of itself to boot.  In that Richard
is a sales person and therefore is predisposed to "Sell" this position
whether of not it has merit, also looks very suspicious.

  Therefore I can only read this Nuelevel position as one that
strongly indicates that Nuelevel is not interested in looking or
assisting in finding a workable solution to the many Transfer
problems and poor practices that have been broadly reported
and have become a concern of fairly large proportions.  In addition
this Nuelevel position seems to be one of protecting your own
.BIZ registrations and registrants whether or not they would like
to move to a different registrar.

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> FYI - This is the note that NeuLevel sent out to the Registrars earlier
> today regarding transfers in the .BIZ domain.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> Loudoun Tech Center
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Building X
> Sterling, VA 20166
> e-mail: [email-masked]
>
>
****************************************************************************
> *****************************************
>
> Dear Registrar Partner,
>
> We have recently received numerous questions and comments from registrars
on
> the issue of domain transfers between registrars, and we want to begin a
> dialogue with you on the transfer-related challenges facing our industry.
>
> It is NeuLevel's belief that there is currently no acceptable method for
> transferring domain names in the existing gTLD space that accomplishes the
> goal of portability of domain names while at the same time preventing
abuses
> such as "slamming."  As most of you are aware, and as has been extensively
> documented, there are significant problems in the .com, .net and .org TLD
> space with how transfers of domain names occur, not the least of which is
> the challenge of establishing apparent authority.  The current situation
is
> not only confusing for registrars, but also to the ultimate consumer.
>
> We also understand that many registrars are just now becoming familiar
with
> the capabilities and functionality of the "auth-info" tokens provided by
the
> so-called "thick registries" including .biz and .info.  However, overall
> knowledge of the thick registry transfer process, particularly at the
> Registrant level, is still minimal or non-existent.
>
> Some of the problems that have come to our attention include (a) that some
> Registrars are generating blanket (common) tokens for all domain name
> registrants; (b) other registrars are not providing tokens to their
> customers at all; (c) registrants are neither requesting tokens nor do
they
> have an adequate understanding about the need or use for tokens.  Finally,
> there do not yet exist secure and efficient systems for token retrieval
> (re-issuance) in cases where a token is lost or stolen.
>
> The net result is that few unique, secure and valid tokens are getting
into
> the hands of registrants, and hence to potential gaining Registrars.
While
> this is not the result of bad faith or bad practice by Registrars, it is
> currently causing a gap in the education of the Registrar community and
with
> our ultimate consumers, the Registrants.  The industry and end-user
> population have simply not been educated in the proper use of "auth-info"
> tokens.   This is the fault and responsibility of NeuLevel as much as
> anyone.  We feel that it is both our responsibility and obligation to
ensure
> that systems for the proper issue, storage and processing of tokens are
> institutionalized within the industry.
>
> We do not believe there is currently a working transfer model in the gTLD
> industry.  If we implement .BIZ transfers now we expect we would
contribute
> to industry problems rather than fixing them.  Therefore, we intend to
> freeze .BIZ transfers for a period of 30 to 60 days and engage in a
program
> of channel/user education regarding transfers with tokens. In this program
> we will work with you to create systems and awareness for the issue,
storage
> and processing of secure, unique, valid tokens.  We do not believe this is
> an insurmountable task.  We are at fault for not initiating it sooner, and
> we want to advance this dialogue with you for the betterment of our
industry
> practices and for the enhancement of the end-user experience.
>
> In addition, during this period, we also intend to discuss with each of
you
> the merits and flaws of a system that recognizes a five (5) day ACK/NACK
in
> a system that already provides for reliable, authorized transfers by using
a
> valid token.  With your collaboration we will look to stimulating industry
> debate on the merits of instantaneous transfer (in the presence of a valid
> token).  We believe this is an achievable and desirable position, when we
> have all institutionalized the proper management of tokens.
>
> I will be available to discuss this as will your Registrar Relations
Account
> Executive.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation and contribution to
> this dialogue.  If you have any immediate reactions, please feel free to
> respond to this email and we'll begin collecting and reviewing your
> feedback.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Tindal
> Vice President, Sales and Channel Relationships
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Sterling, VA 20166 USA
> [email-masked]
>
> ---------
> Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are
requested to not cross-post messages.

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:42:58 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Congratulations to the new GA chair and alternate chair

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

Thank you  Danny Younger and Patrick Corliss for your endeavours as GA chair
and Alternate chair during 2001.

Congratulations and best wishes to the New Chair and Alternate Chair,
Thomas Roessler and Alexander Svensson, who are taking over the GA
challenge of keeping it an open space for meaningful exchanges providing
valuable input to the DNSO - many things are yet to be done.

For your information, the section:
 "Administration Documents of the General Assembly of the DNSO"
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html,
keeps records of all GA activities.

Glen de Saint Gery
DNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:55:33 -0600
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: [GTLD Registries List] FW: .BIZ Transfer Policy

Jeff,

Thanks for your e-mail.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the
subject, but perhaps before jumping to the conclusion that you already have,
please consider the following:

1)  NeuLevel has every interest in finding a workable solution to the
problems associated with transfers between Registrars.   NeuLevel, a
subsidiary or NeuStar, has since the very beginning supported the Registrars
position in doing everything possible to enhance the portability of domain
names.  In fact, NeuStar has a long history of enhancing portability of
telephone numbers for all of North America.  For example, because of
NeuStar, all United States consumers can switch local telephone companies
without having to change their phone numbers because we maintain the Local
Number Portability database.  The parallels between the telephone industry
and domain names are striking, and NeuStar intends to apply the same
philosophies to the Internet space.  

2)  It is not in the interest of any new Registry, including NeuLevel, to
inhibit portability.  To be blunt, transfers are a revenue event for the
Registry (because an additional term must be bought with every transfer), so
it is very much in a Registry's interest to see that the transfer process is
as easy as possible.  That being said, we do not want to allow the transfers
to take place until the proper secure systems are in place, and the ultimate
consumer is protected.  

3)  We believe the mess in .com, .net and .org has taken way too long to
resolve and often the consumer is being left out of the debate.  With the
new method that NeuLevel is proposing to be adopted, consumers will be able
to easily transfer their domain names by giving their "auth-info" tokens to
the "gaining registrars" and see their transfers take place immediately --
No e-mails from the losing registrar, no auto-nacks, no games -- no hassle
to the consumer.  If a registrant presents a valid token to the gaining
registrar when a transfer is requested, the Registry knows that the transfer
has been authorized by the Registrant.  There will be no waiting periods and
thus, no room for a losing registrar to "game" the system.

4)  Before this can happen, however, registrars and registrants must be
educated on how to generate a token, how to maintain the security of a
token, and how to recover a lost token, through the EPP Protocol used by the
"thick registries."  This takes time.  We are aggressively engaging in such
an educational campaign now and as soon as the Registrars and Registrants
can be educated, you will see a far more superior and secure transfer
mechanism than anything that currently exists.
  
Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
NeuLevel, Inc. 
Loudoun Tech Center
46000 Center Oak Plaza
Building X
Sterling, VA 20166
e-mail: [email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:45 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; General Assembly of
the DNSO
Subject: Re: [GTLD Registries List] FW: .BIZ Transfer Policy

Jeff and all,

  I am afraid that I would have to disagree with Richards contention
here with respect to Transfer of Domain names.  His long winded
explanation after stating his and it seems Nuelevels position on this
issue is also a bit suspicious in and of itself to boot.  In that Richard
is a sales person and therefore is predisposed to "Sell" this position
whether of not it has merit, also looks very suspicious.

  Therefore I can only read this Nuelevel position as one that
strongly indicates that Nuelevel is not interested in looking or
assisting in finding a workable solution to the many Transfer
problems and poor practices that have been broadly reported
and have become a concern of fairly large proportions.  In addition
this Nuelevel position seems to be one of protecting your own
.BIZ registrations and registrants whether or not they would like
to move to a different registrar.

Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> FYI - This is the note that NeuLevel sent out to the Registrars earlier
> today regarding transfers in the .BIZ domain.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> Loudoun Tech Center
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Building X
> Sterling, VA 20166
> e-mail: [email-masked]
>
>
****************************************************************************
> *****************************************
>
> Dear Registrar Partner,
>
> We have recently received numerous questions and comments from registrars
on
> the issue of domain transfers between registrars, and we want to begin a
> dialogue with you on the transfer-related challenges facing our industry.
>
> It is NeuLevel's belief that there is currently no acceptable method for
> transferring domain names in the existing gTLD space that accomplishes the
> goal of portability of domain names while at the same time preventing
abuses
> such as "slamming."  As most of you are aware, and as has been extensively
> documented, there are significant problems in the .com, .net and .org TLD
> space with how transfers of domain names occur, not the least of which is
> the challenge of establishing apparent authority.  The current situation
is
> not only confusing for registrars, but also to the ultimate consumer.
>
> We also understand that many registrars are just now becoming familiar
with
> the capabilities and functionality of the "auth-info" tokens provided by
the
> so-called "thick registries" including .biz and .info.  However, overall
> knowledge of the thick registry transfer process, particularly at the
> Registrant level, is still minimal or non-existent.
>
> Some of the problems that have come to our attention include (a) that some
> Registrars are generating blanket (common) tokens for all domain name
> registrants; (b) other registrars are not providing tokens to their
> customers at all; (c) registrants are neither requesting tokens nor do
they
> have an adequate understanding about the need or use for tokens.  Finally,
> there do not yet exist secure and efficient systems for token retrieval
> (re-issuance) in cases where a token is lost or stolen.
>
> The net result is that few unique, secure and valid tokens are getting
into
> the hands of registrants, and hence to potential gaining Registrars.
While
> this is not the result of bad faith or bad practice by Registrars, it is
> currently causing a gap in the education of the Registrar community and
with
> our ultimate consumers, the Registrants.  The industry and end-user
> population have simply not been educated in the proper use of "auth-info"
> tokens.   This is the fault and responsibility of NeuLevel as much as
> anyone.  We feel that it is both our responsibility and obligation to
ensure
> that systems for the proper issue, storage and processing of tokens are
> institutionalized within the industry.
>
> We do not believe there is currently a working transfer model in the gTLD
> industry.  If we implement .BIZ transfers now we expect we would
contribute
> to industry problems rather than fixing them.  Therefore, we intend to
> freeze .BIZ transfers for a period of 30 to 60 days and engage in a
program
> of channel/user education regarding transfers with tokens. In this program
> we will work with you to create systems and awareness for the issue,
storage
> and processing of secure, unique, valid tokens.  We do not believe this is
> an insurmountable task.  We are at fault for not initiating it sooner, and
> we want to advance this dialogue with you for the betterment of our
industry
> practices and for the enhancement of the end-user experience.
>
> In addition, during this period, we also intend to discuss with each of
you
> the merits and flaws of a system that recognizes a five (5) day ACK/NACK
in
> a system that already provides for reliable, authorized transfers by using
a
> valid token.  With your collaboration we will look to stimulating industry
> debate on the merits of instantaneous transfer (in the presence of a valid
> token).  We believe this is an achievable and desirable position, when we
> have all institutionalized the proper management of tokens.
>
> I will be available to discuss this as will your Registrar Relations
Account
> Executive.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation and contribution to
> this dialogue.  If you have any immediate reactions, please feel free to
> respond to this email and we'll begin collecting and reviewing your
> feedback.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Tindal
> Vice President, Sales and Channel Relationships
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Sterling, VA 20166 USA
> [email-masked]
>
> ---------
> Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are
requested to not cross-post messages.

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:59:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN Contracts & Best Practices

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:39:44 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Re: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars
>
> > Unless or until the Registrar, and Registry contracts have specific
> > provisions to require Registries and Registrars to follow a best
> > practices doctrine and technical standards for these sorts of
> > areas, there will be no stopping Registrars, Registries or even
> > resellers from using their own technical approaches to issues
> > such as Domain Name transfers, Deletes, and original registrations.
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> Good point here.  However, it doesn't really matter what is written in the
> contracts or Code of Best Practice if ICANN has not got the will and the
> determination to enforce their provisions.

  Indeed true here Patrick.  It is becoming obvious to a growing number
of stakeholders, large and small, that ICANN is reluctant or unwilling
to do their duty under the White Paper and MoU of oversight.  We
also must remember that the NTIA must approve these Registry and
Registrar contracts, and therefore any amendments to them would also
need that same approval.  In addition the NTIA, failing the ICANN
DoD and staff, also has oversight responsibilities and authority as
well...

>
>
> Which makes me wonder why Registrars, for example, even bother to
> participate in the constituency structure !!

  For appearances sake I suppose..

>
>
> As long as they pay their ICANN fees, they will be looked after.

  Well it certainly looks this way...

>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:05:57 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Registrar Constituency Formal Reponse to the VGRS WLS Proposal

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01907.html

Thanks,

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:06:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] FW: .BIZ Transfer Policy

Jeff and all assembly members or other interested parties.

  First let me thank you Jeff for your response.  It was quite interesting
to say the least.  However I must take exception with you statement
characterizing my stated position and the position of our [INEGroup]
members.  You are incorrect that I or our members have "Jumped"
to any conclusions.  I certainly have not, and I know of no INEGRoup
member that has to date either.  Secondly, I nor any of our members
have reached any conclusions on what would be the best solution to
the problem of Domain Name Transfers, as it seems for the time being,
Nuelevel has.  So I hope that you are now clear or straightened out
a bit better on my and our members current thoughts on the Domain Name
Transfer problem.

  It is also very interesting and worthy of note, that Nuelevels stated
position on Domain name Transfers is somewhat different that
what you are espousing in your response to me (See below).
First you state that Nuelevels "Official" position is, and I quote
from below:
"It is NeuLevel's belief that there is currently no acceptable method for
 transferring domain names in the existing gTLD space that accomplishes the
 goal of portability of domain names while at the same time preventing
abuses such as "slamming."  As most of you are aware, and as has
been extensively documented, there are significant problems in
the .com, .net and .org TLD space with how transfers of domain
names occur, not the least of which is > the challenge of establishing
apparent authority."
=======  End of quote from "Official" Nuelevel Position =====

  Than here in your response you state, that Nuelevel is, and has
been working with the Registrar and Registry community to
come up with a solution to the Domain Name Transfer problem.

  These two positions seem to be quite opposed to each other
with respect to actual interest in aiding in solving the problem.
As such, it would seem that Nuelevel is more interested in
their self interest with maintaining the original registrant and
his/her Domain Name, irrespective of that registrant perhaps
wishing to transfer that Domain Name to another Registrar,
or even possibly another .BIZ registry.  Of course you know
that there is more than one .BIZ registry...

  Although I can see clearly that not wishing to allow for a
Nuelevel Registrant to be able to transfer his/her domain
is enlightened self interest for Nuelevel, it does not provide
for the Registrant the flexibility he/she has under the current
ICANN Registrar agreements/contracts...  So the creation
of confusion on the consumer would seem to be at least
in part done by Nuelevel for .BIZ registrants or potential
registrants.

  However we [INEGroup], some of which are .BIZ registrants,
do agree that much confusion is apparent or present given the
poor Registrar Contract that ICANN edicted upon the consumers/
stakeholders without their consent or consideration.  So addressing
the confusion of the consumer/stakeholder would be in order.

  As to to Nuelevels "Official" position on the aspect of Domain
Name Transfers with respect to "Slamming" as being one of the
more concerning problems in transfers of domain names, we
don't see such as a main issue.  Rather we see the ability
of the loosing registrar or registry for a Domain Name
being transferred having the ability to hold hostage the
Domain Name holder and the opportunity for Domain
Name Hijacking during the current transfer process,
as being much more concerning as has been noted on several
public forums discussing these DNS related issues...

  You also stated in your response here that:
"2)  It is not in the interest of any new Registry, including NeuLevel, to
inhibit portability.  To be blunt, transfers are a revenue event for the
Registry (because an additional term must be bought with every transfer), so
it is very much in a Registry's interest to see that the transfer process is
as easy as possible."

  I would have to say that this statement is only half true.  It is true
to the extent that the receiving registrar or registry will receive
a financial benefit from making and receiving a transfer that would
exceed the transfer fee that the loosing registry would realize.
It is not true that any and all transfers benefit all registrars or
registries on necessarily and equal basis.  And again in this
response, you differ significantly from your Nuelevel's
"Official" position...

  Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your e-mail.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the
> subject, but perhaps before jumping to the conclusion that you already have,
> please consider the following:
>
> 1)  NeuLevel has every interest in finding a workable solution to the
> problems associated with transfers between Registrars.   NeuLevel, a
> subsidiary or NeuStar, has since the very beginning supported the Registrars
> position in doing everything possible to enhance the portability of domain
> names.  In fact, NeuStar has a long history of enhancing portability of
> telephone numbers for all of North America.  For example, because of
> NeuStar, all United States consumers can switch local telephone companies
> without having to change their phone numbers because we maintain the Local
> Number Portability database.  The parallels between the telephone industry
> and domain names are striking, and NeuStar intends to apply the same
> philosophies to the Internet space.
>
> 2)  It is not in the interest of any new Registry, including NeuLevel, to
> inhibit portability.  To be blunt, transfers are a revenue event for the
> Registry (because an additional term must be bought with every transfer), so
> it is very much in a Registry's interest to see that the transfer process is
> as easy as possible.  That being said, we do not want to allow the transfers
> to take place until the proper secure systems are in place, and the ultimate
> consumer is protected.
>
> 3)  We believe the mess in .com, .net and .org has taken way too long to
> resolve and often the consumer is being left out of the debate.  With the
> new method that NeuLevel is proposing to be adopted, consumers will be able
> to easily transfer their domain names by giving their "auth-info" tokens to
> the "gaining registrars" and see their transfers take place immediately --
> No e-mails from the losing registrar, no auto-nacks, no games -- no hassle
> to the consumer.  If a registrant presents a valid token to the gaining
> registrar when a transfer is requested, the Registry knows that the transfer
> has been authorized by the Registrant.  There will be no waiting periods and
> thus, no room for a losing registrar to "game" the system.
>
> 4)  Before this can happen, however, registrars and registrants must be
> educated on how to generate a token, how to maintain the security of a
> token, and how to recover a lost token, through the EPP Protocol used by the
> "thick registries."  This takes time.  We are aggressively engaging in such
> an educational campaign now and as soon as the Registrars and Registrants
> can be educated, you will see a far more superior and secure transfer
> mechanism than anything that currently exists.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> NeuLevel, Inc.
> Loudoun Tech Center
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> Building X
> Sterling, VA 20166
> e-mail: [email-masked]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:45 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'; General Assembly of
> the DNSO
> Subject: Re: [GTLD Registries List] FW: .BIZ Transfer Policy
>
> Jeff and all,
>
>   I am afraid that I would have to disagree with Richards contention
> here with respect to Transfer of Domain names.  His long winded
> explanation after stating his and it seems Nuelevels position on this
> issue is also a bit suspicious in and of itself to boot.  In that Richard
> is a sales person and therefore is predisposed to "Sell" this position
> whether of not it has merit, also looks very suspicious.
>
>   Therefore I can only read this Nuelevel position as one that
> strongly indicates that Nuelevel is not interested in looking or
> assisting in finding a workable solution to the many Transfer
> problems and poor practices that have been broadly reported
> and have become a concern of fairly large proportions.  In addition
> this Nuelevel position seems to be one of protecting your own
> .BIZ registrations and registrants whether or not they would like
> to move to a different registrar.
>
> Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> > FYI - This is the note that NeuLevel sent out to the Registrars earlier
> > today regarding transfers in the .BIZ domain.
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> > NeuLevel, Inc.
> > Loudoun Tech Center
> > 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> > Building X
> > Sterling, VA 20166
> > e-mail: [email-masked]
> >
> >
> ****************************************************************************
> > *****************************************
> >
> > Dear Registrar Partner,
> >
> > We have recently received numerous questions and comments from registrars
> on
> > the issue of domain transfers between registrars, and we want to begin a
> > dialogue with you on the transfer-related challenges facing our industry.
> >
> > It is NeuLevel's belief that there is currently no acceptable method for
> > transferring domain names in the existing gTLD space that accomplishes the
> > goal of portability of domain names while at the same time preventing
> abuses
> > such as "slamming."  As most of you are aware, and as has been extensively
> > documented, there are significant problems in the .com, .net and .org TLD
> > space with how transfers of domain names occur, not the least of which is
> > the challenge of establishing apparent authority.  The current situation
> is
> > not only confusing for registrars, but also to the ultimate consumer.
> >
> > We also understand that many registrars are just now becoming familiar
> with
> > the capabilities and functionality of the "auth-info" tokens provided by
> the
> > so-called "thick registries" including .biz and .info.  However, overall
> > knowledge of the thick registry transfer process, particularly at the
> > Registrant level, is still minimal or non-existent.
> >
> > Some of the problems that have come to our attention include (a) that some
> > Registrars are generating blanket (common) tokens for all domain name
> > registrants; (b) other registrars are not providing tokens to their
> > customers at all; (c) registrants are neither requesting tokens nor do
> they
> > have an adequate understanding about the need or use for tokens.  Finally,
> > there do not yet exist secure and efficient systems for token retrieval
> > (re-issuance) in cases where a token is lost or stolen.
> >
> > The net result is that few unique, secure and valid tokens are getting
> into
> > the hands of registrants, and hence to potential gaining Registrars.
> While
> > this is not the result of bad faith or bad practice by Registrars, it is
> > currently causing a gap in the education of the Registrar community and
> with
> > our ultimate consumers, the Registrants.  The industry and end-user
> > population have simply not been educated in the proper use of "auth-info"
> > tokens.   This is the fault and responsibility of NeuLevel as much as
> > anyone.  We feel that it is both our responsibility and obligation to
> ensure
> > that systems for the proper issue, storage and processing of tokens are
> > institutionalized within the industry.
> >
> > We do not believe there is currently a working transfer model in the gTLD
> > industry.  If we implement .BIZ transfers now we expect we would
> contribute
> > to industry problems rather than fixing them.  Therefore, we intend to
> > freeze .BIZ transfers for a period of 30 to 60 days and engage in a
> program
> > of channel/user education regarding transfers with tokens. In this program
> > we will work with you to create systems and awareness for the issue,
> storage
> > and processing of secure, unique, valid tokens.  We do not believe this is
> > an insurmountable task.  We are at fault for not initiating it sooner, and
> > we want to advance this dialogue with you for the betterment of our
> industry
> > practices and for the enhancement of the end-user experience.
> >
> > In addition, during this period, we also intend to discuss with each of
> you
> > the merits and flaws of a system that recognizes a five (5) day ACK/NACK
> in
> > a system that already provides for reliable, authorized transfers by using
> a
> > valid token.  With your collaboration we will look to stimulating industry
> > debate on the merits of instantaneous transfer (in the presence of a valid
> > token).  We believe this is an achievable and desirable position, when we
> > have all institutionalized the proper management of tokens.
> >
> > I will be available to discuss this as will your Registrar Relations
> Account
> > Executive.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation and contribution to
> > this dialogue.  If you have any immediate reactions, please feel free to
> > respond to this email and we'll begin collecting and reviewing your
> > feedback.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Richard Tindal
> > Vice President, Sales and Channel Relationships
> > NeuLevel, Inc.
> > 46000 Center Oak Plaza
> > Sterling, VA 20166 USA
> > [email-masked]
> >
> > ---------
> > Participants on the gTLD Registry Constituency public mailing list are
> requested to not cross-post messages.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1006
*************************