Ed and all, I made a very similar argument some months ago now, and it too fell on deaf ears. What is even more amazing is that the DOC/NTIA let's this slide! To me that is utterly amazing, and displays their utter disdain for the Registrant and nearly complete ignorance.... Ed Gerck wrote: > Chuck: > > Thanks for your reply -- which is not a surprise, but somehow > I hoped otherwise. So, the tail is wagging the dog? Instead of > changing a faulty statement (Appendix B), the SRP decides to code > it and enforce it. Fraud becomes the default -- and this is illegal, may > I note, which invalidates Appendix B as an enforceable clause. > > As another argument besides that of providing an illegal incentive to fraud, > IMO what Appendix B says is illegal in California -- as an example. > In California, an agreement to conduct a transaction electronically may not be > contained in a standard form contract that is not an electronic record, > and an agreement in such a standard form contract may not be conditioned > upon an agreement to conduct transactions electronically. Somehow thus, > the losing registrar should be able to say NO in a variety of ways, including > ex protocol -- instead of being conditioned upon that agreement to conduct > said transaction electronically and in a fraudulent-prone way. > > As a "positive" point in the case of the mandatory auto ACK, the losing > registrar may now claim it has no liability in the case of domain hijacking > -- isn't this great?? Seems to suit the general model of avoiding liability > at the expense of the registrant. > > But, by accepting this, IMO the Registry (e.g., NSI) needs to also accept full > responsibility for any fraud commited using a loophole known to the Registry > and which could be easily prevented by changing the automatic ACK to > NACK. So, liability may not be so easy to circumvent -- just changed > target from losing registrar to Registry. Perhaps, an incentive to change > the ACK to NACK? > > Cheers, > > Ed Gerck > > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote: > > > Ed, > > > > No argument with your point here but what I said is accurate. The protocol > > was originally designed with an auto NAK but we were required to change it > > according terms of the Registry License and Agreement executed on November > > 10, 1999. In Appendix B of that agreement you will find this statement: "In > > all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice regarding > > the "transfer" request within five (5) days. Failure to respond will result > > in a default "approval" of the "transfer."" > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Gerck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 3:39 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: NACK not ACK, was Re: Fw: Re: NSI says they can't transfer > > domains from CORE registrars > > > > It is not good at all, when you affirm that Bill is correct. > > I hope you are mistaken. Because what you just > > confirmed is fully incorrect in a fair protocol. > > > > The losing registrar's failure to make its negative > > response arrive at the NSI Registry within 5 days > > might be: (i) because the reply was diverted, (ii) because > > the question never arrived, (iii) because the question > > arrived but was not read, etc. > > > > The correct protocol response, as I may have said > > elsewhere, is for the SRP to enforce a NACK (no > > acknowledgment) if there is no response to the > > Registry from the losing registrar -- not an automatic > > ACK. This would stop the transfer on its tracks, > > which is necessary even if it may err on the side of > > caution. > > > > Of course, the alternative is for domain hijacking to > > be the default mode of operation in the SRP. > > > > As another argument, it is perhaps time to reread Danny Cohen's think > > piece on "The Dating Habits of Japanese Men in The State of Kansas" > > or something like that. > > > > It deals with the great question of whether the suitor should commit > > suicide when not receiving a reply from his invitation to his intended > > fiancee;-)... > > > > It recounts all the possible reasons why the reply might not be > > received. Cutting to the chase scene... > > > > Not delivered to the intended recipient. > > Not answered by the recipient, though it was received. > > Reply sent, but not received by the suitor. > > > > Only one of these is legitimate case for commiting suicide, per > > Japanese custom. All of these are legimate reasons to transfer > > a domain name, per your message. > > > > Thus, it seems to me that this case may also has interesting echoes > > from Danny's story. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ed Gerck > > > > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote: > > > > > Bill is correct. The losing registrar may also respond in the affirmative > > > before the 5-day period is up, in which case the transfer will occur > > sooner. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bill Gerrard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 1:34 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Fw: Re: NSI says they can't transfer domains from CORE > > > registrars > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > the transfer must be effected thru the core registrar you are dealing > > > > with not directly with the entity. > > > > > > I thought the *gaining* registrar was the one that initiates the registrar > > > transfer request, then NSI Registry sends a confirmation message to the > > > losing registrar. If the losing registrar does not respond in the > > > negative within 5 days, the domain is tarnsferred to the gaining > > > registrar. > > > > > > Can someone confirm this? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bill Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
