<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-dow123] NCUC Procedural Proposal - recirculated
- To: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] NCUC Procedural Proposal - recirculated
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:06:07 -0700
<div>So Steve, what would you consider a reasonable assurance of payment
of a penny, or maybe a half-cent (2 for a penny)? This
argument goes nowhere in the long run.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps you're confusing customer data with whois data. I have
purchased several domain names for family, friends, and business
associates. I am the customer of record, they are the Registered Name
Holders. The RAA has nothing to do with customer data, only reasonable
assurance of payment. Registrars are under completely different
agreements regarding customer data with payment gateways, cc
companies, PayPal, etc.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development & Policy
Planning<BR>The Go Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>Office: 319-294-3940<BR>Fax:
480-247-4516<BR><A
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR>Please contact
my direct supervisor at <A
href="mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx";>president@xxxxxxxxxxx</A> with any
feedback.<BR><BR>This email message and any attachments hereto is
intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you have
received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and
permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its
attachments.<BR><BR></div>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-dow123] NCUC Procedural Proposal - recirculated<BR>From: "Steve
Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Thu, April 27, 2006
9:51 am<BR>To: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: "Bruce
Tonkin"
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<BR><gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>I
understand it is done; my question is whether it is consistent
with<BR>the RAA. As I seem to recall someone saying in other task
force<BR>postings, just because something is useful or convenient does
not<BR>necessarily mean it is legal. <BR><BR>Ross's posting and Tom's
seem to read "its registration fee" in this<BR>provision as referring
to the fee the registrar must pay the registry.<BR>But that fee is
called (in the registry agreement -- at least in Section<BR>4.1 of the
.org agreement) the "registry operator fee." More<BR>importantly,
payment of that fee is clearly the obligation of the<BR>registrar,
whether the registrant contributes to it or not.
The<BR>registrant does not owe this fee to the registry, so it
does not make<BR>sense to say that the registrar would "guarantee" the
registrant's<BR>payment of it. <BR><BR>The more logical reading
of this provision is that "its registration<BR>fee" refers to the fee
the registrar charges the registrant. That may<BR>be more or less
than the "registry operator fee" that the registrar must<BR>pay the
registry. The question is whether the registration fee may be<BR>zero.
The second sentence of 3.7.4 seems inconsistent with a zero
fee:<BR><BR>"For this purpose, a charge to a credit card, general
commercial terms<BR>extended to creditworthy customers, or other
mechanism providing a<BR>similar level of assurance of payment shall be
sufficient, provided that<BR>the obligation to pay becomes final and
non-revocable by the Registered<BR>Name Holder upon activation of the
registration." <BR><BR>At the time this provision was first
included in the RAA (1999) it was<BR>viewed as a significant protection
against speculative or abusive<BR>registration. If the registrar
had to get reasonable assurance of<BR>payment before the registration
took effect, it also made it more likely<BR>that it would know who the
registrant was. Certainly this has some<BR>relevance to the issue
of accuracy of Whois data. <BR><BR>Steve
<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Ross Rader
[mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] <BR>Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:26
AM<BR>To: Steve Metalitz<BR>Cc: Bruce Tonkin;
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] NCUC
Procedural Proposal - recirculated<BR><BR>This seems to be a bit of a
red-herring, but to answer the question, the<BR>RAA does not specify
whom payment must be secured from. In other words,<BR>if the registrar
or another party is willing to act as a guarantor for<BR>the fees, then
it is perfectly reasonable for them to offer names to the<BR>public on a
no-cost basis. This practice has been in consistent use<BR>since early
2000.<BR><BR>Steve Metalitz wrote:<BR>> Bruce,<BR>> <BR>> On
what basis can "registrars offer domain names for free," in light
<BR>> of the following provision of the RAA:<BR>> <BR>> 3.7.4
Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless and <BR>>
until it is satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of
<BR>> payment of its registration fee.<BR>> <BR>>
Steve<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]<BR>> On Behalf Of Bruce
Tonkin<BR>> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:57 AM<BR>> To:
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] NCUC
Procedural Proposal - recirculated<BR>> <BR>> Hello
Kathy,<BR>> <BR>> As discussed during the last GNSO Council
meeting, the WHOIS task <BR>> force does not have as part of its
terms of reference a change to the <BR>> data being collected.
The WHOIS task force is tasked with considering<BR><BR>> what
data collected should be available for public access, in the<BR>context
of<BR>> the purpose of WHOIS. The WHOIS task force work
specifically<BR>> addresses the current clause 3.3 "Public Access to
Data on Registered <BR>> Names" of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement (RAA) (see<BR>>
http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.)<BR>>
<BR>> While work on considering the data collected may also be a
useful area<BR><BR>> of policy development, this would require a
separate PDP under the <BR>> GNSO's processes. For
information, registrars are required to retain <BR>> certain
information (clause 3.4 "Retention of Registered Name Holder <BR>>
and Registration Data."), and are also required under clause 3.7
<BR>> "Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders."
to <BR>> provide information on the purpose for which data is
collected:<BR>> <BR>> "Registrar shall provide notice to each new
or renewed Registered Name<BR><BR>> Holder stating:<BR>> <BR>>
- The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the <BR>>
applicant are intended;<BR>> <BR>> - The intended recipients or
categories of recipients of the data <BR>> (including the Registry
Operator and others who will receive the data <BR>> from Registry
Operator);<BR>> <BR>> - Which data are obligatory and which data,
if any, are voluntary; and<BR>> <BR>> - How the Registered Name
Holder or data subject can access and, if <BR>> necessary, rectify
the data held about them."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Note that the purposes that data is collected may vary by registrar,
<BR>> and registrants should check those purposes. For example
some <BR>> registrars may offer domain names for free, but in return
provide the <BR>> personal information to marketing companies
etc.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> Bruce Tonkin<BR>> Chair,
GNSO.<BR>> <BR>> <BR><BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>-- <BR><BR>
-rr<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
"Don't be too timid and squeamish
about your actions.<BR>
All life is an experiment.<BR>
The more experiments you make the
better."<BR>
- Ralph Waldo Emerson<BR><BR><BR>Contact
Info:<BR><BR>Ross Rader<BR>Director, Research &
Innovation<BR>Tucows Inc.<BR>t. 416.538.5492<BR>c.
416.828.8783<BR><BR>Get Started: http://start.tucows.com<BR>My
Blogware: http://www.byte.org </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|