Standard of Promptness

David Schwartz davids at
Tue Jan 18 04:16:09 UTC 2005

> Bill,

	I'm not speaking for Bill. These are my views.

>    You indicate "a" known former state, which implies that you'd allow
>    reverting back multiple changes under your proposed scheme...

	You would have to. Otherwise, two quick transfers would defeat the scheme.
An alternative approach would be to prohibit a transfer within one week of
another transfer.

>    Out of curiosity, how far back would you allow one to revert to?
>    Any previous state within the last two weeks?  Longer, or shorter?

	I would say two weeks would be a reasonable maximum. One week would be a
reasonable minimum. One could also do it in terms of business days, but I
think this may cause confusion with international issues and which days
count as business days.

>    Given the potential for disruption through fraudulent demands
>    to revert, one has to carry over previous servers for at least this
>    interval to be safe, or do I misunderstand your proposal?

	This would mean that a transfer would not really be final for some number
of days after the transfer was initiated. This would, of course, create a
new problem with fraudulent reverts. A no questions asked revert policy
would create one class of problems, whereas a requirement for proof for
reversion would create another class.

	I personally think the best solution is as follows:

	1) A domain cannot be transferred within one week of a previous transfer.

	2) Once a domain that was in normal status has been transferred, it can be
reverted by request of the losing registrar for one week from the time of
the transfer, no questions asked, as soon as possible. (Should Verisign do
this? Or the losing registrar through an automated interface?)

	3) If the gaining registrar questions the reversion, the losing registrar
must then provide proof of request for reversion from the previous owner and
the gaining registrar can provide proof of release from the previous owner.
Some method to resolve this dispute would be needed. Perhaps arbitration at
the initial expense of the gaining registrar (who could, of course, bill
their customer however they choose). The arbitrator could award costs to the
winner of the dispute (in case of total bogus reversion requests).

	This would allow people to protect valuable domains by picking registrars
with sensibe reversion policies. It would also prevent dishonest registrars
from holding domains through reversion without authorization, though they
could impose costs on the gaining registrar if they wished).

	The downside would be that when you acquired a new or newly-transferred
domain, you would want to wait a week before using it for anything mission
critical. You also couldn't consider the act of transferring a domain proof
positive of intent to give it to you. You might want to wait a week before,
for example, making payment. Or you would want to possess proof of the
owner's intent to transfer, not just proof of a transfer.

	David Schwartz
	<davids at>

More information about the NANOG mailing list