hello tony..
i personally believe that there has to be some sort of basic set of codes
with some enforcement mechanism to assure the integrity of the registrar.
essentially at this point in time in the com,net & org registry there is
only essentially one registrar as i define the process and that is NSI.
(all the rest are currently agents) NSI has complete control over the final
access to the registry and there is no "sharing" of the registry access
outside of the company (to the best of my knowledge).
in effect.. i assume that they are totally responsible for any actions taken
to change information in and to maintain their specific "registry data".
with the advent of shared registries in the gtld's. there has to be some
basic standards established to protect the integretity of the registry.
i call it a code of conduct but someone else may use another term for the
following examples: (this is just a short list)
1. assurance of proper documentation for domain name ownership transfers
2. insuring quick and timely adherence to registrant file update requests
3. avoidance of conflict of interests - i.e. registrant owns company that
speculates & facilitates speculation of domain names
4. proper financial control over fiduciary relationships & transactions
(i.e. registrant pays registrar for renewal of 1000 domain names and
registrar goes bankrupt prior to paying registry)
rules,standards, codes ... call them what you will but i feel that they are
essential components for insuring confidence in the growth in the registry
system.
ken
p.s. i feel advocating business standards or codes of ethics only enhances
public confidence. as a CPA it has worked quite well for the profession as a
whole. as far as other internet -related activities are concerned. i leave
it up to them to determine what is in their best self-interest, although i
would assume that many internet industry trade associations currenty have
"codes" to help instill confidence in doing business with their members..
(the bar association also comes into mind here as well..)
-----Original Message-----
From: A.M. Rutkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority
>Ken,
>
>>1. are you saying that you don't have a position on a code of ethics for
>>registrars
>
>Do you know of any other Internet related service where the
>providers are subject to a "code of ethics?" Should ISPs
>be subject to a code of ethics? ECommerce providers?
>How about telephone companies?
>
>The reality today is that there are few services in the
>communications field where providers are subject to codes.
>They are hard to devise and avoid being discriminatory.
>They are difficult to enforce. They are often abused.
>They are fraught with liabilities of all kinds. Once you
>start, where do you end?
>
>Do you want to open up this Pandora's Box?
>
>
>--tony
>
