I'm reluctant to jump in here as I've never seen an outsider join the
OpenSRS List without having his ass handed back to him. This topic is
important though, so I'll try to clarify the NeuLevel position:
1. The Current Problem is Not Due to Slamming
NeuLevel understands very well that the overwhelming majority of current
transfer requests are Registrant approved. As I read-back our open letter I
realize I may have implied that slamming is more common. This is not what I
meant. The language I used was unfortunate and Elliot has already rapped my
knuckles for it. We'll clarify to Registrars.
I'd like to make clear to everyone on this list that NeuLevel has been the
most supportive of all the Registries regarding the Transfers issue. We've
endorsed the majority Registrar (TUCOWS and many others) position on many
occasions including public support during Registry Constituency and Names
Council meetings at the last two ICANNs. We've also been in dialogue with
the Chairperson of the DNSO Transfers Task Force regarding this issue -
again supporting the majority Registrar position.
2. Codes of Conduct Don't Work Well When There is Bad Conduct
Having supported this position, we're sufficiently realist to know that
codes of conduct are only as good as their participants allow them to be.
We've seen this issue discussed for almost 12 months. A solution has been
defined but it relies on the good will of all parties for effective
implementation. Given the tight margins on domains, we think it would be
quite easy for a losing Registrar to challenge transfers and create a
burden-of-proof cost that exceeds a gaining Registrar's margin on incoming
customers. We think "AuthInfo" could be an effective and automated
technology solution to this problem. No-one makes money on domains without
automated processes. It won't solve every transfer, but it should put the
dispute ratio back where it belongs - a very small percentage of all
transfer requests. AuthInfo was built into the EPP for a reason. We
simply haven't educated and institutionalized the technology within the
industry. It's our fault, we've been busy with lawsuits.
3. NeuLevel Could Easily Establish a Secure Transfer System Using Admin
Contact Emails (William's note).
Yes we could (although NSI could not as they don't have this data at the
Registry level). I think Registrars would rightly have a cow if we did it
though. All contact data is Registrar/Reseller data, and it can only be
used by us with their permission. Even with permission this would be moving
control of transfers from the Registrars to the Registry. This would be in
contravention of the responsibility split between Registries and Registrars
and would breach our own business model. We think "AuthInfo" achieves the
same goal but keeps customer ownership and control where it belongs - with
Registrars and resellers.
4. TUCOWS Has Been a Leading Registrar in Getting This Fixed
TUCOWS has been one of, if not the, leading Registrar in trying to get this
problem fixed. We'll work with them to derive a solution that works for you
and your customers.
Richard Tindal
NeuLevel Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:44 PM
To: Chuck Hatcher
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: .biz Transfer Policy
Thursday, Thursday, January 17, 2002, 12:14:56 PM, Chuck Hatcher wrote:
> Not to excuse the fact that this should have been anticipated and dealt
with by Neulevel before now, they DO have a point.
> I have been unable to get the auth_code/auth info code/auth info
token/secret decoder ring for .info domain names I have registered at Enom,
NameScout, and Bulkregister.
> It used to bother me a lot, until I discovered that even with the code
(RegistrationTek provides codes on request), my attempted .info transfers
time out (Afilias whois says transfer pending, but
> the OpenSRS order times out after about a week.)
What really stinks about this is that they are using a piss poor
justification for the entire process.
Nuelevel could EASILY establish a system for secure transfer
authentication, since, unlike the com/net/org registry, they have the
email information for the admin contact in their own database, and
could create their own email authorization system for transfers.
Yet they use Verisign's fictional "rampant domain slamming" argument
to extend the no transfer period.
I sometimes wonder how much common sense some of these companies have.
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
"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
At 1/17/02 5:43 PM, William X Walsh wrote:
>Nuelevel could EASILY establish a system for secure transfer
>authentication, since, unlike the com/net/org registry, they have the
>email information for the admin contact in their own database, and
>could create their own email authorization system for transfers.
Agreed. In fact, there's no reason Verisign registry couldn't do the same
thing; it's a trivial requirement to have the registrar provide the
current e-mail address, either each time it's updated or on demand.
The whole problem is a non-issue if someone would just address it; it's a
trivial problem to solve. This nonsense with approval keys is just
foolish.
>Yet they use Verisign's fictional "rampant domain slamming" argument
>to extend the no transfer period.
Yes; Rick, whatever else you do, I'd disabuse them of that notion really
quickly. That whole idea is complete BS, but they're treating it as if
it's a given.
--
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
