ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] GoDaddy & Nacked Transfers

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, icann-board@xxxxxxxxx, jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] GoDaddy & Nacked Transfers
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:52:11 -0600 (GMT-06:00)

Danny and all,

  The only effective way to protect Registrants, potential future 
registrants from GoDaddy abuse in particular is the immediate
disaccreditation of GoDaddy as a ICANN registrar and have all 
currently GoDaddy Registered Domain names transfered to the
alternitive registrar of the registrants choice, and never
renew GoDaddy's Registrar Accreditation unless or until ALL
of their managment has been replaced with more appropriate
managment.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Nov 27, 2009 11:24 AM
>To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ga] GoDaddy & Nacked Transfers
>
>
>Most of us remember the serious community-wide effort that went into 
>fashioning the Transfers Consensus Policy.  It's a good policy designed to 
>promote facile domain name portability, and overall the policy has been 
>effective...
>
>Looking at the July 2009 .com/.net report we see that the medium number of 
>transfers nacked was "zero" while the average was 1.7 per registrar.
>
>We also see that the Godaddy "family" managed to nack 10,437 transfers that 
>month.  
>
>While you may draw your own conclusions, I see that something is clearly wrong 
>with this picture.
>
>Compliance Staff has argued that Godaddy is not in violation of the letter of 
>the Policy.  I contend that if the spirit of the policy is being violated, 
>then we indeed have an outstanding issue that still needs to be addressed.
>
>In the context of the work being done in the RAA amendments WG, the issue 
>comes down to this:  we cannot craft legal language that will effectively 
>guard against every possible loophole that registrars will choose to exploit 
>(and it takes way too long to craft amendments to a consensus policy to 
>address these loopholes).  
>
>So how then are we to proceed?  How do we protect ourselves from abusive 
>registrar self-interest?  Suggestions would be welcome.
>
>
>
>
>      
>
Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>