On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Kim Davies wrote:

 > Skeeve Stevens wrote:
[..]
 > > As we have been given the management role of those to look after them, I
 > > already consider us to have implicit permission, but I thought that they
 > > should be informed and given a 'opt out'.
 > > 
 > > Does auDA see any problems with this?
 > 
 > As a "consumer", I have a problem with this. I would rather see you get 
 > _explicit_ permission from your customer that you have the right to 
 > change their registrar (I assume that is what you meant?). Otherwise, 
 > your proposal sounds something very easily abused.

Indeed.  As I read the new policy - of which I was blissfully unaware
until Chris posted the advisory about an abuse of it; my fault for not
keeping up I guess - and particularly the ACCC's comments on the draft,
it seems that the protection of the registrant's control over his, her
or its domain licence has won out on this one (applause for AuDA ..) 

 > An email with a short opt-out time frame is ripe for abuse. Email is an 
 > unguaranteed medium, you could be sending the emails to the wrong 
 > address etc. It should be opt-in, not opt-out.

If I'm reading the policy right, it is opt-in only by the registrant. 

 > In these areas I definately think it is important to side with the 
 > consumer awareness rather than open loopholes.

Yes.  I've just forwarded the new policy to one interested registrant.

The ability to transfer without having to renew is worthy too, methinks.

 > kim
 > (speaking for myself as usual)

Cheers, Ian
(having noone else I could even pretend to speak for)