[NCUC-DISCUSS] Registrants Rights and Responsibilities: let's propose a real alternative

[Timothe Litt]

> * to be able to transfer the registered domain name between registrars
> (without hassle, upon satisfying the registrars' clearly-stated terms)
> * to be able to renew (or choose not to renew) a domain registration on
> clearly disclosed terms
The laudable goals here are transparency of terms and portability of 
domain names when the terms aren't acceptable.  But this doesn't 
accomplish them.

Given the "and we can change the terms at will" (typically by posting an 
incomprehensible change on a website in some obscure page) language that 
exists at many levels in the registration hierarchy, there additionally 
needs to be something like (I'm not an attorney):

* The right to reasonable notice of any change to the registrar's terms, 
delivered to the registrant in plain language on a push (e.g. e-mail, 
not a 'you must monitor this website') basis.   In the same language as 
the original - signup in Russian, changes in Chinese doesn't fly.  
Changes must be easy to find (e.g., redline/change-bar/changes-only, not 
total replacement of a 4,000 line document, reformatted so diff doesn't 
work.)

* The right to transfer the registered domain name, without fee or 
'hassle', to another registrar at its renewal date or upon any material 
change in the registrar's terms and/or policies that is adverse to the 
registrant.

A decent registrar would pro-rate any remaining term - but I don't think 
we can impose that, and a decent registrar wouldn't run afoul of the 
language.  Anyhow, that's not the big cost.

Absent such language, the ability to transfer 'upon satisfying the 
registrar's clearly stated terms' is meaningless.

Consider, for example, a registrar who might announce "effective 
tomorrow, all defendants in a domain name dispute will pay our legal and 
operational costs, regardless of amount, outcome or merit.  And 
transfers out incur a convenience fee of US$100K".

Or one who says "we no longer support DNSSEC records".

As a fallback, "without fee of 'hassle'" in the second bullet item could 
also be "on the original terms".

Yes, there's an appearance of micro-managing - but an unenforceable 
'right' is an illusion.  And hidden / at-will changes make the proposed 
rights unenforceable.  (Again, I'm not an attorney - this is my opinion, 
not legal advice.)

FWIW, one of my ISPs DID just say "we changed our terms, effective...", 
and pointed consumers to a page with 8 documents, each of hundreds of 
lines of dense legalese - and no change bars. And yes, the formatting 
was changed so even copying the documents and diffing old vs. new was 
infeasible.  (Assuming you'd saved old, which was no longer available.)  
No small consumer (especially non-commercial) will know what changed 
until they run afoul of the change, even those who might have paid an 
attorney to dissect the language in the first place.

Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.

On 08-Apr-13 13:38, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> Thanks Rudi,
>
> You suggest important additional rights:
> * to be able to transfer the registered domain name between registrars
> (without hassle, upon satisfying the registrars' clearly-stated terms)
> * to be able to renew (or choose not to renew) a domain registration on
> clearly disclosed terms
>
> and to accomplish that,
> * to be informed of the registrar's terms, conditions, and pricing
> information (since this is the only thing the ICANN document says, we
> can borrow some of that language)
>
>
>
> --Wendy
>
> On 04/08/2013 01:20 PM, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>> Wendy,
>>
>> I fully agree with your vision and proposal.
>> Actually I consider WHOIS and privacy rules conflicting in some situations. When contact details of registrant are needed in order to protect the registrant and his rights they are most often hidden through the excuse of privacy regulation. A more transparent and open policy from registrar side is needed in order to allow pertinent needed contact. Most often we discover problems when a registrant wants to transfer his domain name to another registrar. So far, the regulation fails to give enough rights to the registrant.
>>
>> Rudi Vansnick
>>
>> Op 8-apr-2013, om 17:37 heeft Wendy Seltzer het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> Fadi mentioned this document
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights-responsibilities-07mar13-en.pdf
>>> in his opening, and other Board members raised it again this evening.
>>>
>>> We've characterized it as a toothless document. I suggest that we draft
>>> an alternative document, with REAL rights, including:
>>>
>>> The rights to:
>>> * persistent neutral resolution of the registered domain
>>> * no suspension or termination of registration without due process
>>> * privacy options in the provision and display of registration data
>>> * fair and non-discriminatory treatment from registrars and registries
>>> * no censorship of domain use, content, or communications through
>>> registries or registrars
>>> * right to use the registered domain for any purpose
>>>
>>> Responsibilities, including:
>>> * to be contactable, or to provide an alternative such as allowing the
>>> registrar to suspend registration on unresponded-to allegation of abuse
>>> * not to use the domain name for abuse of the DNS (to be defined more
>>> specifically: e.g., specific DNS attacks, deliberate malicious
>>> distribution of malware, or criminal activity)
>>> * not to cybersquat (already defined in UDRP)
>>>
>>> To have the most impact, it would be great if we could get a statement
>>> together during the Beijing meeting, since the Board may well be asked
>>> to vote on the RAA by late April. Please feel free to add to the above.
>>>
>>> --Wendy
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5159 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130408/f6467b0c/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss