NCUC Supports the Loss of Escrow Rights

[Danny Younger]

The NCUC is on the verge of casting a critical vote on the RAA.

Amendments to the RAA have been proposed that declare that if a registrant wants to utilize private or proxy registrations, the registrar reserves the right not to escrow the underlying customer data.

Why is the NCUC countenancing the loss of this significant right?  Why is it prepared to accept this deficient package of amendments?

The rationale seems to be that if the constituency agrees to numerous odious clauses, it might have the chance in the remote future to weigh in on the possibility of listing a set of registrant rights.

Apparently, the constituency is not aware of the fact that the "no-third party beneficiaries" clause clearly conveys the fact that the RAA contract provides no rights whatsoever to the registrant, and that this consideration will never ever change.

The NCUC is being sold a bill of goods by charming snake-oil salesmen from the registrar constituency -- the same people that rejected every single proposed revision to the RAA put forward by any party whatsoever.

Why should we lose precious existing rights merely in exchange for the vague promise of perhaps seeing some list in the future?  This is not a wise course of action for the constituency to pursue.

The registrar's motion to accept the complete package of RAA amendments should be rejected.  Common sense should prevail.  The proposed RAA amendments have some good elements and some bad elements.  Reject the bad parts and accept the good parts.  There is no requirement to accept the package in its entirety.