Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 8:23:25 PM, Tindal, Richard wrote:
> 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. When the respond with as much candor and straightforwardness as you have, there's rarely an issue with that :) Like the news shows refer to themselves as "No Spin Zones" this is pretty much a "No BS Zone." > This topic is > important though, so I'll try to clarify the NeuLevel position: > 1. The Current Problem is Not Due to Slamming Thanks for clarifying that. > 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. I see your point, and it is valid, but I am one who thinks that strict contract enforcement is the answer here. If a registrar is causing problems as you describe, and not acting according to the code of conduct, they risk losing their business association with the registry. I understand it isn't that simple right now, I just think it should be. > 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. I don't know about how controversial this would be, especially if it was very vanilla. To be honest, I would much rather see something like this implement in the CNO registry by Verisign than the current system, where for the VAST majority of domains registered a registrant must double authenticate their intention to transfer. I simple one step model, implemented in a vanilla and straightforward manner by the registry, just makes sense to me. You eliminate the "challenge" aspect, as there is nothing to challenge, and you eliminate the small risk of slamming, and you resolve the entire transfer issue in one step. > 4. TUCOWS Has Been a Leading Registrar in Getting This Fixed Well, that's to be expected from the Leading Registrar ;) -- 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
