Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #758
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, September 27 2001         Volume 01 : Number 758

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:31:31 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Hello William,

on 9/22/01 2:45 AM, William X Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

> Friday, Friday, September 21, 2001, 1:20:49 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

>>The
>> bankrupcy clause is onerous on the Registrant. I have yet to receive any
>> answer from the Regisrar community to my question: how can a Registrar check
>> whether a foreign national is subject to a pending bankrupcy? If one is
>> looking for an excuse to deny transfer, this is it, and I thought the whole
>> point of redoing these Registrar Agreements was to avoid exactly that.
> 
> They don't have to check, Joanna.  The agreement places no obligation
> for them to do that.  But, let's say that the court has notified the
> registrar the company is in bankruptcy, and that the domain name is
> being considered as one of the assets to pay off the debts of the
> company.  Transfer of the domain name may make it difficult, or
> impossible, to recover the domain name, again because of
> jurisdictional changes.

Of course Registrars must act upon Court Orders, but that is not what this
clause says. The wording is so vague, in no way does it reflect the
interpretation you suggest, whereas it does empower the losing Registrar to
deny the autoNACK for some ill-defined reason that would require
investigative procedures that are not even available them. That puts a very
large hole in the autoNACK bucket.
> 
> The provision doesn't require the registrar to deny, it provides it as
> one of a list of valid reasons a registrar can use.  The list is not
> exhaustive either, presumably any legal dispute regarding a domain
> name would be under the same kind of sufficient grounds.  A court may
> hold that the registrar who is informed of the case, and permits a
> domain transfer to another registrar anyway, acted negligently.  This
> provides a way for registrars concerned about that to use that as a
> permissible excuse to deny the transfer.

The way to protect the Losing Registrar is to build into this agreement the
requirement for the Registrant to take responsibility for disclosing any
pertinent legal proceedings, failing which the DN may be autoNACKed. I would
suggest that both Losing and Gaining Registrar would then be free of
liability unless it could be proved that they were in receipt of Court Order
at the time. If the Registrant fails to disclose voluntarily that a DN is in
dispute or that they are the subject of bankrupcy proceedings, then they
could be found to be in contempt of court.

I maintain that it is not the Registrar's job to police the Registrant
community on behalf of the judicial system and that they are not able to do
so anyway. If what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe it is
not, then the present clause is also onerous on the Losing Registrar, in
that the Losing Registrar may be acting negligently if they do not undertake
bankrupcy investigations and yet they have no way to comply with that
requirement. 

> 
> We can argue if it is the right thing to do, and I'd probably agree
> with you.  But this battle is not about repairing these parts of the
> policy, and if you try and turn this into a complete revamp, it makes
> accomplishing the immediate goal more difficult, perhaps impossible.

It seems a simple task to strike through one clause that makes no sense and
does nobody any favors. You may view this as detrimental to the immediate
goal, whereas I see it as supporting the immediate goal. I have said it
before  - if the losing Registrar is looking for a catch 22 clause to deny
autNACK, this is just perfect.
> 
> So those issues would be resolvable in future proceedings to flesh out
> the full scope of the policies surrounding registrar transfers. Right
> now, the issue of auto Nak is much more important, and needs to be the
> focus of the current discussion.

This is about the autoNACK for reasons stated above. Why can't it to be
removed unless objective reasons to keep it are received from the
Registrars? As stated before, I have yet to hear any.

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:25:54 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Hello William,
>
> on 9/22/01 2:45 AM, William X Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Friday, Friday, September 21, 2001, 1:20:49 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> >>The
> >> bankrupcy clause is onerous on the Registrant. I have yet to receive any
> >> answer from the Regisrar community to my question: how can a Registrar check
> >> whether a foreign national is subject to a pending bankrupcy? If one is
> >> looking for an excuse to deny transfer, this is it, and I thought the whole
> >> point of redoing these Registrar Agreements was to avoid exactly that.
> >
> > They don't have to check, Joanna.  The agreement places no obligation
> > for them to do that.  But, let's say that the court has notified the
> > registrar the company is in bankruptcy, and that the domain name is
> > being considered as one of the assets to pay off the debts of the
> > company.  Transfer of the domain name may make it difficult, or
> > impossible, to recover the domain name, again because of
> > jurisdictional changes.
>
> Of course Registrars must act upon Court Orders, but that is not what this
> clause says. The wording is so vague, in no way does it reflect the
> interpretation you suggest, whereas it does empower the losing Registrar to
> deny the autoNACK for some ill-defined reason that would require
> investigative procedures that are not even available them. That puts a very
> large hole in the autoNACK bucket.

  I agree.  And this clause is either a oversight, or as I suspect worded in such
a way purposefully as to give the Registrar broad choices in which it
could act.  That in and of itself is dangerous, not only to the registrant,
but also to the loosing registrar should a court challenge ensue.  I find that
rather amazing.

>
> >
> > The provision doesn't require the registrar to deny, it provides it as
> > one of a list of valid reasons a registrar can use.  The list is not
> > exhaustive either, presumably any legal dispute regarding a domain
> > name would be under the same kind of sufficient grounds.  A court may
> > hold that the registrar who is informed of the case, and permits a
> > domain transfer to another registrar anyway, acted negligently.  This
> > provides a way for registrars concerned about that to use that as a
> > permissible excuse to deny the transfer.
>
> The way to protect the Losing Registrar is to build into this agreement the
> requirement for the Registrant to take responsibility for disclosing any
> pertinent legal proceedings, failing which the DN may be autoNACKed.

  I disagree here.  The registrant is the customer, as such he/she should be
under no special requirements at the time of registration of a Domain Name,
or the transfer of same, to the loosing registrar or for that matter the winning
one.

> I would
> suggest that both Losing and Gaining Registrar would then be free of
> liability unless it could be proved that they were in receipt of Court Order
> at the time. If the Registrant fails to disclose voluntarily that a DN is in
> dispute or that they are the subject of bankrupcy proceedings, then they
> could be found to be in contempt of court.

  The registrant could only be found in contempt of court if the court or
any of the parties involved submitted a motion that the judge granted
specifying such information be obtained and submitted as evidence...

>
>
> I maintain that it is not the Registrar's job to police the Registrant
> community on behalf of the judicial system and that they are not able to do
> so anyway.

  Again I disagree here as well.  If self regulation it to be successful and
in any way meaningful under ICANN, the registrar must do most of the
policing while at the same time not infringing on the privacy of any
registrant.  Indeed this can become a difficult task, but one if self
regulation is to work must be in part the responsibility of the Registrar.

> If what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe it is
> not, then the present clause is also onerous on the Losing Registrar, in
> that the Losing Registrar may be acting negligently if they do not undertake
> bankrupcy investigations and yet they have no way to comply with that
> requirement.

  Agreed that presently Registrars for the most part are ill equipped to
do bankruptcy investigations.  However with a little effort they certainly
can do so.

>
>
> >
> > We can argue if it is the right thing to do, and I'd probably agree
> > with you.  But this battle is not about repairing these parts of the
> > policy, and if you try and turn this into a complete revamp, it makes
> > accomplishing the immediate goal more difficult, perhaps impossible.
>
> - snip -

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:15:52 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

on 9/26/01 8:25 PM, Jeff Williams at [email-masked] wrote:

>> I maintain that it is not the Registrar's job to police the Registrant
>> community on behalf of the judicial system and that they are not able to do
>> so anyway.
> 
> Again I disagree here as well.  If self regulation it to be successful and
> in any way meaningful under ICANN, the registrar must do most of the
> policing while at the same time not infringing on the privacy of any
> registrant.  Indeed this can become a difficult task, but one if self
> regulation is to work must be in part the responsibility of the Registrar.

Self regulation has not proved to be successful with this industry. ICANN
has demonstrated it is incompetent with respect to both accountability to
the public it purports to serve and enforcement of the agreements it makes.
The self-regulation argument is a refuge to protect the implementation of
policies that seek to promote corrupt elements of an illegitimate
organization.
> 
>> If what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe it is
>> not, then the present clause is also onerous on the Losing Registrar, in
>> that the Losing Registrar may be acting negligently if they do not undertake
>> bankrupcy investigations and yet they have no way to comply with that
>> requirement.
> 
> Agreed that presently Registrars for the most part are ill equipped to
> do bankruptcy investigations.  However with a little effort they certainly
> can do so.
> 
OK Jeff, let's see if there is any truth in your statement. Exactly what
procedures should be undertaken to investigate a Registrant, (whether an
individual or company), operating outside the USA? Please list the relevant
sources for all countries worldwide, and the cost implications of such
investigations. 

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:36:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

On 02:25 27/09/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > The way to protect the Losing Registrar is to build into this agreement the
> > requirement for the Registrant to take responsibility for disclosing any
> > pertinent legal proceedings, failing which the DN may be autoNACKed.
>
>   I disagree here.  The registrant is the customer, as such he/she should be
>under no special requirements at the time of registration of a Domain Name,
>or the transfer of same, to the loosing registrar or for that matter the 
>winning
>one.

all the more than such a clause is IMHO illegal for two reasons:
a) you cannot force someone to prompt information detrimental to him
b) the whole thing calls for a definition of the Registrar service and of the
     domain name. Yours is a yankoyankee issue but as far as I understand
     your legal logic you will always have a conflict due to your 
contradictions
    in understanding DNs, Registrars and Registrants.

Jefsey

     and of the Domain Name. Registration is a service to the Registrant.
     Nothing more. This whole thing is yankoyankee issue resulting from
     an ill understanding of the 

- --
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:36:27 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Hey, Jeff and Jefsey,

You guys are funny here.  Sorry but both of you are clear as mud on this
issue.  Of
course you are both right.  However you have allowed someone else to
define the
issue which becomes a rubics cube.

Jeff is right, the customer should be able to freely transfer any time
and any hold
up is bull.  The true issue is whether the losing registrar has any
rights and the
obvious answer is NO!!! {yes that was a Bohemian scream}

Jefsey you are right, forcing information from anyone to allow them to
exercise a
consumer right is bull.   The true issue is whether the losing registrar
has any
rights and the obvious answer is NO!!! {yes that was a self
sanctimonious statement
of the obvious}

So whoever wrote that first statement should redefine the method in
which they
speak or their thought, either one.

We celebrate independence throughout the world, and thanks to all on
this list for
exercising it lest it atrophy.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 02:25 27/09/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > > The way to protect the Losing Registrar is to build into this agreement the
> > > requirement for the Registrant to take responsibility for disclosing any
> > > pertinent legal proceedings, failing which the DN may be autoNACKed.
> >
> >   I disagree here.  The registrant is the customer, as such he/she should be
> >under no special requirements at the time of registration of a Domain Name,
> >or the transfer of same, to the loosing registrar or for that matter the
> >winning
> >one.
>
> all the more than such a clause is IMHO illegal for two reasons:
> a) you cannot force someone to prompt information detrimental to him
> b) the whole thing calls for a definition of the Registrar service and of the
>      domain name. Yours is a yankoyankee issue but as far as I understand
>      your legal logic you will always have a conflict due to your
> contradictions
>     in understanding DNs, Registrars and Registrants.
>
> Jefsey
>
>      and of the Domain Name. Registration is a service to the Registrant.
>      Nothing more. This whole thing is yankoyankee issue resulting from
>      an ill understanding of the
>
> --
> 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
- --
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:48:46 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Thankfully, my domain registrar of choice is an enlightened organzation.

Here's a couple points from their website (http://www.gandi.net/whowe.html.en):

*************
Why choose Gandi?

- -you really are owner of your domain, as explained on point 1 of our contract,

and

- -you can at any time freely transfer your domain name to another Registrar, without
fee nor locking from our part.
*************

Vive le Gandi!

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:01:07 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Wednesday, Wednesday, September 26, 2001, 8:48:46 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Thankfully, my domain registrar of choice is an enlightened organzation.

> Here's a couple points from their website (http://www.gandi.net/whowe.html.en):

> *************
> Why choose Gandi?

> -you really are owner of your domain, as explained on point 1 of our contract,

Which is really nothing but symbolic, since that "ownership" is still
subject to the same conditions that every registrar is required to
impose on registrants.

> -you can at any time freely transfer your domain name to another Registrar, without
> fee nor locking from our part.

Something that most registrars practice as well, with a few notable
exceptions, such as NSI, Register.com, Registrars.com, and a handful
of others who think Lock-In is a good thing.  But by and large, most
registrars do no encumber outbound transfers in any way.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:12:21 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

I also forgot to mention, that under the UDRP, the domain registrant
is required to submit to the jurisdiction of the registrar in any
court case, which lets the complainant select the jurisdiction as
either that of the registrant OR that of the registrar.  You could be
subject to a default judgement if you fail to make an appearance in
that foreign court.

Wednesday, Wednesday, September 26, 2001, 6:01:07 PM, William X Walsh wrote:

> Wednesday, Wednesday, September 26, 2001, 8:48:46 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>> Thankfully, my domain registrar of choice is an enlightened organzation.

>> Here's a couple points from their website (http://www.gandi.net/whowe.html.en):

>> *************
>> Why choose Gandi?

>> -you really are owner of your domain, as explained on point 1 of our contract,

> Which is really nothing but symbolic, since that "ownership" is still
> subject to the same conditions that every registrar is required to
> impose on registrants.

>> -you can at any time freely transfer your domain name to another Registrar, without
>> fee nor locking from our part.

> Something that most registrars practice as well, with a few notable
> exceptions, such as NSI, Register.com, Registrars.com, and a handful
> of others who think Lock-In is a good thing.  But by and large, most
> registrars do no encumber outbound transfers in any way.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:53:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 9/26/01 8:25 PM, Jeff Williams at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >> I maintain that it is not the Registrar's job to police the Registrant
> >> community on behalf of the judicial system and that they are not able to do
> >> so anyway.
> >
> > Again I disagree here as well.  If self regulation it to be successful and
> > in any way meaningful under ICANN, the registrar must do most of the
> > policing while at the same time not infringing on the privacy of any
> > registrant.  Indeed this can become a difficult task, but one if self
> > regulation is to work must be in part the responsibility of the Registrar.
>
> Self regulation has not proved to be successful with this industry. ICANN
> has demonstrated it is incompetent with respect to both accountability to
> the public it purports to serve and enforcement of the agreements it makes.
> The self-regulation argument is a refuge to protect the implementation of
> policies that seek to promote corrupt elements of an illegitimate
> organization.

  Ahhh!  Well done.  Glad you picked up on what I was trying to convey.
Indeed without proper oversight from the US Govt. by way of the
DOC/NTIA, the contracts, white paper and MoU that the than Interim
ICANN self selected BoD ICANN has shown that it is not capable
of complete self regulation yet.  Maybe some day, but not yet....

>
> >
> >> If what you say is true, and I have no reason to believe it is
> >> not, then the present clause is also onerous on the Losing Registrar, in
> >> that the Losing Registrar may be acting negligently if they do not undertake
> >> bankrupcy investigations and yet they have no way to comply with that
> >> requirement.
> >
> > Agreed that presently Registrars for the most part are ill equipped to
> > do bankruptcy investigations.  However with a little effort they certainly
> > can do so.
> >
> OK Jeff, let's see if there is any truth in your statement. Exactly what
> procedures should be undertaken to investigate a Registrant, (whether an
> individual or company), operating outside the USA? Please list the relevant
> sources for all countries worldwide, and the cost implications of such
> investigations.

  Outside the US in investigating, if necessary is not really feasible, nor
am I saying that it is.  But indeed it can be done, and is done on a fairly
regular basis.  I cannot and would not list sources for all countries worldwide,
or even in the US.  Such a list of sources would exceed the limit of my
E-Mailer as well as the 10k limit for this forum.  Developing sources
such as http://ussearch.com/ for instance would also very so much through
various well known and respected private investigative services, that
it would be a silly and unethical practice for me to reveal any of our sources
on this forum or any similar forum for use by registrars that have little
expertise in using such services for the information regarding bankruptcy's.

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:00:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 02:25 27/09/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > > The way to protect the Losing Registrar is to build into this agreement the
> > > requirement for the Registrant to take responsibility for disclosing any
> > > pertinent legal proceedings, failing which the DN may be autoNACKed.
> >
> >   I disagree here.  The registrant is the customer, as such he/she should be
> >under no special requirements at the time of registration of a Domain Name,
> >or the transfer of same, to the loosing registrar or for that matter the
> >winning
> >one.
>
> all the more than such a clause is IMHO illegal for two reasons:
> a) you cannot force someone to prompt information detrimental to him
> b) the whole thing calls for a definition of the Registrar service and of the
>      domain name. Yours is a yankoyankee issue but as far as I understand
>      your legal logic you will always have a conflict due to your
> contradictions
>     in understanding DNs, Registrars and Registrants.

  Yes, this is yet another way of putting it, all be it a more direct one.
Well done here Jefsey!  >;)

>
>
> Jefsey
>
>      and of the Domain Name. Registration is a service to the Registrant.
>      Nothing more. This whole thing is yankoyankee issue resulting from
>      an ill understanding of the
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:02:49 +1200
From: Steven Heath <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]did say:
 
> I also forgot to mention, that under the UDRP, the domain registrant
> is required to submit to the jurisdiction of the registrar in any
> court case, which lets the complainant select the jurisdiction as
> either that of the registrant OR that of the registrar.  You could be
> subject to a default judgement if you fail to make an appearance in
> that foreign court.

I found this interesting as reported by BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) -
9/26/01

REGISTRY, NOT REGISTRAR, ESTABLISHES ACPA IN REM JURISDICTION

A federal court in Virginia has ruled that Verisign's
registry function for the dot-com, which is based in
Virginia, ensures that all in-rem actions launched under the
cybersquatting act can be brought in Virginia regardless of
which registrar is responsible for the domain in question.
The decision comes in CNN v. CNNews.com (2001 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 14693) a case involving a Chinese media company that
operates a series of domains starting with CN, the Chinese
ccTLD suffix.  The domain was registered with Eastern
Communications, a Chinese-based registrar but the court
found that the ACPA in rem provisions were met by virtue of
Verisigns registry function.  The case now moves to the
substantive claim, with the domain name owner
arguing that there was no bad faith and noting that 99.5% of
its users are registered in China.

Steven Heath
- --
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 23:01:24 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

William,

you are absolutely right.  Do we believe that the good users will soon see this in mass,
and move to such fine registrars or registrar systems such as yours or must we impose
sanctions and force the hand faster than the market will force it?

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Wednesday, Wednesday, September 26, 2001, 8:48:46 PM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > Thankfully, my domain registrar of choice is an enlightened organzation.
>
> > Here's a couple points from their website (http://www.gandi.net/whowe.html.en):
>
> > *************
> > Why choose Gandi?
>
> > -you really are owner of your domain, as explained on point 1 of our contract,
>
> Which is really nothing but symbolic, since that "ownership" is still
> subject to the same conditions that every registrar is required to
> impose on registrants.
>
> > -you can at any time freely transfer your domain name to another Registrar, without
> > fee nor locking from our part.
>
> Something that most registrars practice as well, with a few notable
> exceptions, such as NSI, Register.com, Registrars.com, and a handful
> of others who think Lock-In is a good thing.  But by and large, most
> registrars do no encumber outbound transfers in any way.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> 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

- --
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:50:38 +0200
From: Patrick <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

If I may,

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 06:01:07PM -0700, William X Walsh took time to write:
> > *************
> > Why choose Gandi?
> 
> > -you really are owner of your domain, as explained on point 1 of our contract,
> 
> Which is really nothing but symbolic, since that "ownership" is still
> subject to the same conditions that every registrar is required to
> impose on registrants.

This is true. But it is not symbolic for us : owner name can NOT be changed
online by any contact of the domain. This makes sure that in case of
disputes, the owner stay exactly the same.

If the owner comes to us asking
to change the contacts of *its* domain name (dispute with its hosting
company, etc...), we change them.

Experience has shown that cases like that happen.

With some other Registrars owner name can be changed online by any
contact in 2 minutes. This make the notion of ``ownership'' a little
blurry in our eyes, and that is why we do not do it.

Patrick.
Gandi.
- --
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:50:49 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars Draft:  Transfers

"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:

>
> Something I've always wanted to ask - how can Gandi confer ownership when in
> fact, it is not yours to confer? What I mean is, ICANN and the registries
> deal with "Registered Name Holders" and not "owners" - what does Gandi do
> that allows them to confer ownership of the domain upon the registrant?
>
> Note: This is not a loaded question, rather, just an honest one.
>
> -rwr
>

Nah this is an awesome question,  Just for starters;

When you live in So. Cal. and are by penalty of fines and imprisonment required
to recycle your beer bottle is it possible to own it when you buy it at the
store?

When you put 40 thousand down on a house but the bank carries the mortgage do
you own your house?  When you "buy" your car?

Possession is 9/10ths of the law?  Fee simple absolute subject to condition
subsequent?  You can assign a chose in action but does that mean it can be
owned?

These are not silly notions they are very important.  We are at a frontier and
the determination of how "property rights" are owned have impacts on matters
such as land rushes and homesteading and authority of the crown and
(Natives=ccTLDs?, Alt roots?). Who gets the booty from the newly exploited
territories?  Right now it is all in the hands of the Crown (ICANN) and the
Mayflower Corporation (Verisign), when can us settlers claim a homestead, and
will we have a right to defend that homestead?  Boston Tea Party and Right to
Arms. Taxation with/without representation.

It is fun for us dotcommoners in the GA because we get to fight with the natives
in front hand over half our treasure and still fight with the establishment in
the rear.

Sincerely, your loyal subject,
Eric

- --
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:09:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] projectliberty.org

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010926/sfw065_2.html

"Industry Leaders to Form Network Identity
Alliance-Liberty Alliance Project

Representing Over a Billion Names, ActivCard,
American Airlines, the Apache Software Foundation,
Bank of America, Bell Canada Enterprises, Cingular
Wireless, Cisco Systems, CollabNet, Dun and
Bradstreet, eBay, Entrust, Fidelity Investments,
Gemplus, GM, Global Crossing, i2, Intuit, Liberate
Technologies, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, O'Reilly and
Associates, Openwave, RealNetworks, RSA Security,
Sabre, Schlumberger, Sony Corporation, Sprint, Sun
Microsystems, Travelocity, United Airlines, Verisign,
Vodafone and More Create Multi-Industry Business
Alliance

ProjectLiberty.org Goes Live; All Interested Parties
Invited to Drive Specification and Development
Process"

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 #758
************************