Re: [ga] Proposed Advisory
On 4-Dec-07, at 12:38 PM, Nevett, Jonathon wrote: I don't disagree that there can be an enforcement track and a policy This is not only inaccurate, but also FUD. ICANN is tasked with enforcing its contracts. This policy is a part of that contract. ICANN has issued an advisory (draft form or otherwise) outlining how they are choosing to interpret that contract. And frankly, not only is it consistent with the wording and intent of the original transfers task force, but also of most everyone out there, save Network Solutions and GoDaddy. We went through this circus with NSI on transfers the first time, specifically because we didn't like your business practice. I don't mind it if you choose not to abide by your contracts, but please don't try to tell me that this isn't a contractual issue between NSI and ICANN - at least not with a straight face. It's very easy to use words like "flagrant" and "clear" without any supporting facts No, the fact that we regularly have to reach out to registrars like NSI on a personal basis and beg for a favor to have a name unlocked so that a customer can transfer a name away from you makes it easy to use words like "flagrant" and 'clear". Happy to provide as many specific examples as you can stomach. Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
|