ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

Re: [registrars] Q: are registrars allowed to deny transfers-out

  • To: Richard Lau <richard@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Q: are registrars allowed to deny transfers-out
  • From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:16:08 +0100 (CET)
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <1169111089.2886.1169873637@webmail.messagingengine.com> from Richard Lau at "Jan 18, 2007 01:04:49 am"
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes, but this is a warning and contains no directions or
guidelines. With the current rules, I do not think there is a way to
force a losing registrar to refund the renewal fee.

Yours,
Marcus Faure
CORE Council of Registrars




> And as for my point of some Registrars not refunding the renewal if a
> transfer is done during the auto-renewal period, ICANN actually has a
> warning on their site about it at:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-06jun02.htm
> 
> "Registrants who transfer names within the 45-day Auto-Renew Grace
> Period should check with the registrar from which they are transferring
> regarding a possible refund. Even though losing registrars receive
> refunds of auto-renewal fees they have paid to the registry in these
> circumstances, not all registrars make refunds to customers. The effect
> of failure of the losing registrar to refund is that the registrant pays
> registration fees to both the losing registrar (for the auto-renew) and
> to the gaining registrar (for the transfer), but only receives a
> one-year extension of term."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:05:42 -0500, "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> > As Bruce points out, its a legal question.
> > 
> > One can interpret the rules in the way Richard does - one may also 
> > interpret them the other way. We interpret it such that the registrant's 
> > contract ends at expiry, so therefore any payment made after expire must 
> > necessarily be for services rendered in a past or future registration 
> > period - that the post-expiration, pre-renewal portion of the lifecycle 
> > is a bit of a void. YMMV.
> > 
> > -r
> > 
> > Richard Lau wrote:
> > > Dan,
> > > 
> > > If a domain has passed it's expiration, and is then sitting in the
> > > auto-renewal period, the non-payment is for the current registration
> > > period, not for a pending or future registratin period.
> > > 
> > > Had a nasty discussion with a non-US Registrar and the end user ended up
> > > having to pay an large renewal fee ($35) to get the domains
> > > renewed/unlocked. Then transferred the domains out. Since the
> > > transfer-out occured within the 45 day renewal period, the Registry
> > > refunded the auto-renewal to the Losing Registrar, who refused to credit
> > > the end user back. So the end user paid for a renewal that they didn't
> > > get.
> > > 
> > > There's an actual post on the ICANN site that talks about this related
> > > issue of customers who pay for a Transfer after having paid for a
> > > renewal during the auto-renewal period only getting 1 year after having
> > > paid for 2.
> > > 
> > > Richard
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:59:01 -0500 (EST), "Dan Wright"
> > > <wright@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> > >> http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm
> > >>
> > >> [Quote Section A.3]
> > >> Instances when the requested change of Registrar may not be denied
> > >> include, but
> > >> are not limited to:
> > >>
> > >>     * Nonpayment for a pending or future registration period
> > >>
> > >>     [...]
> > >>
> > >>     * Domain name registration period time constraints, other than during
> > >>     the
> > >> first 60 days of initial registration or during the first 60 days after a
> > >> registrar transfer.
> > >> [/Quote]
> > >>
> > >> Seems to me that expired domains apply to one or both of those bullet
> > >> points and
> > >> should not be blocked.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Daniel J. Wright                           wright@xxxxxxxx
> > >> Lead Software Developer, pairNIC   https://www.pairnic.com
> > >> pair Networks, Inc.                    http://www.pair.com
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> ...if the domain is in an expired state?
> > >>>
> > >>> I know we allow it, many others do, but under the new transfer policy
> > >>> can a registrar use this as a valid reason to block a transfer out or
> > >>> revoke access to the registrar-lock status?
> > >>>
> > >>> -mark
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Mark Jeftovic <markjr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc.
> > >>> ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225
> > >>> fx. +1-(866) 273-2892
> > >>>
> > 
> 




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