RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed Advisory
From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, December 04, 2007 11:48 am
To: 
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



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
> track. Unfortunately, ICANN staff's draft advisory is attempting to 
> go
> down the road of amending the terms of the Transfer Policy on the 
> issue
> of whether registrars may lock domain names for a period of time or
> require special provisions when a registrant changes Whois contact
> information just before a transfer request - often a precursor to 
> domain
> name hijacking. Such policy work falls within the GNSO's mandate 
> and is
> well beyond the ICANN staff's authority. If you don't like a certain
> business practice, you should seek a solution under the approved 
> policy
> process. The draft Advisory attempts to deny registrars a key tool in
> protecting registrants from fraud by changing policy outside the
> approved policy development process.

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