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

[Timothe Litt]

> the registrars argued that
> uniform rules would interfere with their "competitive" differences as
> defined by the contract terms in their individual registration agreements
> with customers. 
That may well be their knee-jerk reaction, but in this case it's wrong.

Nothing I suggested prevents vigorous competition on terms. Rather the 
contrary.

All I suggested is that:
     * Registrant must be pro-actively notified of changes
     * Changes must be easily determined by the registrant
     * Changes adverse to the registrant must enable the registrant to 
change registrars under (at worst) the terms initially agreed-upon.

If the initial terms are changed in a way beneficial or neutral to the 
registrant, everyone is happy.

If they are changed in a *materially adverse* way, the registrar can't 
hold the registrant captive.  (Materially adverse is a term of art - 
usually self-evident, but might provide employment for attorneys.)

The initial terms might be what we would consider outrageous, but if 
clearly disclosed and agreed to, that's not our concern. Registrars are 
free to compete on price, or what DNS records they'll register, or how 
fast they'll implement changes, or what language they speak, or how 
disputes are resolved or what choice of law applies to their contracts.  
Or anything else.

The constraints - which are simply transparency and fairness - are that 
if the registrar changes those terms, the change needs to be clear and 
pushed to the registrant.  And that if they are bad for the registrant, 
the new terms (which were unknown at the time the contract was entered 
into) can't lock the registrant into the worsened situation.  (This must 
also apply to changes pushed to the registrar from the 
registry/ICANN/legal process - this is why I said "many levels of the 
registration hierarchy".)

This is pro-competition, pro-consumer, pro-registrar - any registrar 
should welcome these constraints.  It ensures that any registrar who 
behaves ethically and doesn't abuse its customers can solicit the 
customers of those who are unethical/abusive. Since all registrars are 
(or want the appearance of being) ethical, transparent actors serving 
the interests of their customers, who would possibly object?

However, they won't be put in place unless they are universally 
applied.  This is one of those cases where "If I do the right thing, but 
my competitors don't, I'm at a disadvantage." Requiring these as 
standard terms removes that excuse.

And that's what we should argue for.

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

This communication may not represent my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.

On 08-Apr-13 15:38, Ron Wickersham wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Timothe Litt wrote:
>
> These are important and great "rights" you propose.
>
>> 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.
>
> Note that when you change registrars the term of registration doesn't 
> change
> within the same year, as that date is preserved by the registry. There is
> a possiblity that multi-year renewals are held by your registrar and only
> forwarded to the registry on the annual renewal date.
>
> I spoke in favor of some of these rights in the limited context of PEDNR
> (post expiry domain name recovery), and found the registrars argued that
> uniform rules would interfere with their "competitive" differences as
> defined by the contract terms in their individual registration agreements
> with customers.
>
> I expect that the rights you outline would be even more vigorously 
> opposed
> yet we should bring them forward to place on the record that the current
> "competitive" practices that are changable without notice leave 
> registrants
> powerless to look out on their own for rights.
>
> -ron
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130409/9331da93/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