RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Tim and all,

  With all due respect to you very nicely worded response,
Godaddy has violated it's RAA with ICANN in every way.  Intent
in the transfer policy is determined by the actual wording
of that policy, not your or anyone at Godaddy.  The proper
method is to request an amendment to the RAA contract regarding
the policy of transfers after public review and some measured
consensus by the participating public.  You/Godaddy chose
to ignore the process for what appears to be expediancy
and a business advantage.  That's not reasonable and
should not be acceptable either.  So a rose, as it were,
by any other name, smells the same.  So does a skunk!

  Seems we may have another verson of RegistryFly in
Godaddy in the making...  

-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Dec 5, 2007 2:38 PM
>To: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ga] Proposed Advisory
>
>
>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 
>
>
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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