RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik,

Respectfully, yes, I really did mean it. We have been careful to be sure
we are not stepping outside of the letter or intent of the Transfer
Policy. Of course, others will not agree with our view. 

Although some assume devious motives on our part, we really are just
interested in a secure transfer process. We are no more happy with
having hijacked names transferred to us (happens more often than you
might think) than we are with having names we manage hijacked from our
customers (attempted nearly every daily). 

That said, we don't like the way this has become a contentious issue.
That's not our itent. I look forward to the upcoming PDPs on the
Transfer policy. Perhaps we can resolve these concerns, get us all
comfortable with the process, and on the same page as a result.


Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory
From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, December 05, 2007 6:12 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Tim,

do you really mean what you have said..? The GoDaddy's 'Transfer
Prohibition Period' agreement imposes additional transfer-deny period on
top of those explicitly enumerated in RAA. This extra period is in fact
'registration period time constraints, other than during the first 60
days of initial registration or during the first 60 days after a
registrar transfer' as stated in point d) and also points 8. and 9. in
the RAA Obligations, and therefore in direct violation with the RAA
agreement.
I understand your concerns about possible fraud attempts during
transfers but it's simply unacceptable to fix this problem by violating
other aspects of the agreement. If this is a problem, and indeed it is,
then it should be addressed in right place or solved using some other
approach not colliding with the agreement conditions. After all, you are
within the ICANN structures, who could then manage this better?

To make the statement 'GoDaddy is in complete compliance with the
transfer policy as written' valid GoDaddy should immediately redesign
the 'Transfer Prohibition Period' check-box be optional and not
mandatory.

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:25 AM
To: Ross Rader
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory


> 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.

Of most everyone out there? Now that's what I call FUD. You have nothing
to back up such a sweeping statement. When considering our customer's
perspective, it seems to us that most everyone out there is okay with
it. In fact, they like it. 

There are issues at times, but they are easily resolved. And most of the
issues arise due to the aftermarket where some registrants seem to think
they can assign their registration agreement to anyone under any
circumstances they choose without any questions raised on the
registrar's part. We certainly want to facilitate that as best we can,
but we also want to do it securely.

GoDaddy is in complete compliance with the transfer policy as written.
We are in agreement with Network Solution's view of the policy as Jon
has clearly presented it in his comments on the proposed advisory. 

Finally, trying to equate this with *the circus with NSI on transfers
the first time* is also just more FUD.


Tim