Paul Andersen wrote: > > It might be important to note that the original fees were decided before > OpenSRS was even really heard of. Many of the fees were not reexamined > until CIRA had some more experience operating in this climate.
Are these still in a period of flux? Apparently changing the registrant name requires paying some money, too... that seems a little off base, also (unless you're going for the NetSol model... :-)# > Every single e-mail CIRA sends out to registrants is being examined one by > one and I believe RTAC (Registrar Technical Advisory Committee) will be > consulted. TuCows has a rep on this committee. Good to hear. > Having said that I am not a lawyer and as I said previously in this world > we need to listen to them every so often and there may be issues getting > what would be ideally could for registrars while still protecting the > registry. Granted. I'm just hoping you're using lawyers with a foot in the computer world -- too often it is heard of where lawyers have no clue about the computer side of things and are just creating issues for the rest of us. > This actually was not a CIRA decision. As a registrar it doesn't matter to > me since I can grab that data from the API. CIRA is re-evaluating whois in > general (mainly in an attempt to curb SPAM). I checked with staff and the > reason why it is not there is there was a huge backlash from the > Registrars. The current whois has been made to be like the old UBC whois > because changing it broke too many things that used it to check > registrations. If the registrars have access to the API, why the heck do they need to parse the whois output? > It is true that ca is more expensive in the wholesale cost market then > dot-COM. dot-COM does have the volume advantage over dot-CA. I'm going to > avoid getting into this much further simply because it gets a bit messy > due to my role. I do believe that wholesale costs need to be addressed and > they will I am sure. Yes, but in the .CA also has a scale advantage. I am sure the infrastructure is not nearly as complex for .CA as it is for the gTLD's. > I don't understand your first portion about sticking your finger in their > face. CIRA only enforces the rules that are very public ally available. Actually, my aside should have implied sticking their face in the pie. Sorry about that confusion. > If you feel that these rules have been violated I'd be more then happy to > investigate and try and get you an answer. No, I just feel the rules need changing. > Ah yes. The thick vs. thin model. We could go on forever about this one. > There is a whole mess of complications here. In terms of how the CIRA > rules and framework are set up (the fact that the domain holder is a > member of CIRA and has a right to vote and shape how CIRA is run) makes > this very difficult. It isn't as simple as just saying eliminate the CIRA > username account and password. I agree that eliminating that would be nice > in that it would avoid a lot of confusion that exists. I'm not saying it needs to be eliminated either -- it's something that needs to be there for voting issues. However, the processes of changing the admin contact, registering a new domain, etc. should be able to be done without having to visit the CIRA site. > Under any of the tld's this is a difficult situation. NetSol requires the > fax document. It has been a bit since I checked the rules specifically but > I'm pretty sure a fax document to your registrar (TuCows) will allow them > to switch an admin contact address which is the same as dot-COM. No, NetSol will use MAIL-FROM or the pre-defined Guardian method -- the only way you need to fax is if you can't forge the 'Ack' e-mail or you've lost your guardian password. > I realize if you have the management account/password then you don't need > this under dot-com. But really that account/password shouldn't be in a > resellers hands -- it should belong to the domain holder only (the same > was a CIRA user/password should be). Well, I believe this has been hashed and rehashed on this list, and the way we look at it is that our clients don't want to be bothered, and they pay us to take care of these issues for them. We act as their agents in that sense. > I'm not a lawyer. I can only make my comments based on what lawyers have > told me. The best comment I heard once was that really we don't ever know > until it is challenged. That is very true. In fact, I remember hearing that all that legalese on the back of your telephone bill means jack-squat. It's just there to try and scare you away from suing the telco. > Having said this. I agree that anything that can be done to simplify the > process is a good thing. If you like I can see if I can get something > explaining the reasons from someone who does understand all the legal > problems. I'd love to hear the legal explanation on why CIRA feels they need confirmation for registrations and admin contact modifications, instead of passing the liability off to the registrar or reseller. > If you think CIRA is a bureaucracy you really should try ICANN politics > sometime. :) Yeah... seen bits and pieces there. :-)# I think a compromise between ICANN's "hands-off" process and CIRA's "groping-hands" process would be ideal. > FWIW there are 12 board members (who are not paid) and around 20 staff > members (which is pretty small as registries go). So why are they trying to do so much? Release it to the registrar! (have you sensed a common theme? :-)# > The new board has only met twice and is still learning the ropes. There is > no lack of issues to discuss. We are simply trying to prioritise them and > I do agree with you in the issues that need to be addressed. They bother > me as well. However as part of my duty I am required to look in the best > interests of preserving the dot-CA name space which sometimes means I need > to do things that may not please registrars (which I am one of). It is not > easy and I hope you can understand this. I do, and that is one of the reasons I voted for you -- it seemed that you would likely represent the issues from the right side of the fence, rather than the side of someone who was clueless about the Internet (as in, they call up tech support and say "Is the Internet down?" or worse yet: "My cupholder's broken") and I saw that in some of the candidates. > > I subscribed to that list as soon as I saw it pop up. So far: no traffic. > > It is not a CIRA sanctioned list. Why don't you make the first posting? :) It would help if the issues up for discussion had been mentioned... I have no idea what it is we're looking to talk about! :-)# -kb -- Kris Benson ABC Communications +1 (250)612-5270 x14 +1 (888)235-1174 x14
