At 5/5/04 12:01 AM, Simon Waters wrote:
>Domain locking is a fudge because the basic model is wrong, transfer of a
>domain should only ever have been permitted through a positive action on the
>part of the registrant with their current supplier.
This also leads to trouble because the current supplier has a strong
incentive not to transfer it (just like the new supplier has a strong
incentive to transfer it). Strong incentives make people bend the rules.
What would solve the problem is verification by a third party with no
financial incentive in the outcome. The registry would be an ideal entity
if they were independent like PIR, Afilias, Neulevel, etc.... Ross can
probably tell us why this idea wasn't adopted, but I suspect it wasn't
originally given much consideration because Verisign owned NSI, so there
was still a conflict of interest for .com, .net. and .org. Might make
more sense now that NSI is going to be independent (is that still
happening? Or did it happen already?).
Mark Morgan also added:
>Imagine
>having to contact VGRS (or whatever they're called these days) directly
>to get a domain transfer pushed through, regardless of the current
>registrar...
Hmmm... while I'm no fan of VGRS, I'd think if it were done right (the
gaining registrar could trigger completely automated sending of the
messages by the registry, with the user visiting a registry Web page to
confirm it), it would be okay (assuming VGRS is no longer in the
registrar business to avoid the conflict of interest, of course).
-- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies http://www.tigertech.net/"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." -- Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:57 EDT