RE: [ga] Question to ICANN Staff

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also think one has to remember that the registrants chose Maxim as their
Registrar and have not made an informed choice to go with NameScout; that
decision was made by ICANN.  By offering the choice of informing NameScout
of their billing details OR making arrangements for their domain names to be
transferred to a Registrar of their own choice, ICANN is protecting itself
and the Registrant.

A sensible move.

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Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.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Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.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