RE: [ga] Question to ICANN Staff

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would imagine that it is something to do with the Data Protection Act.

One thing I like about the answer is that registrants have choice; to
transfer their domains away from NameScout if preferred.  By giving this
choice the registrant is protected insofar as is possible.  If the
registrant chooses to give their information to NameScout the DPA is adhered
to and in the interim the registrants domains are in safe hands giving them
time to make alternative arrangements if so desired.

Seems pretty sensible to me.

Best regards

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Danny Younger
Sent: 16 July 2009 18:50
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ga] Question to ICANN Staff



In the ICANN Announcement regarding the Bulk Transfer of Maxim Internet
Domains to NameScout, this question is posed and answered:

Q. Why do former Maxim Internet customers need to contact NameScout?

A. Maxim Internet did not forward billing information to NameScout.
Accordingly, all registrants must provide updated billing information or
transfer their names to other registrars.

I fail to comprehend why registrants must proactively make such contact when
ICANN has in place Registrar Data Escrow Specifications that require:

(1.2.7) "The name and (where available) postal address, e-mail address,
voice telephone number, and fax number of the billing contact." 
(See http://www.icann.org/en/rde/rde-specs-09nov07.pdf)

Why isn't the escrowed data being used?






      



Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009
06:16
 

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 15/05/2009
06:16