RE: [ga] Question to ICANN Staff

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I could also go into detail about Contract Law... the Registrant's contract
was made with Maxim and not NameScout.  By giving their billing details to
NameScout Registrants are effectively contracting NameScout.  Therefore all
3 parties to this unfortunate set of events are protected.

Nice work by ICANN's legal team methinks!  They have obviously looked at all
these scenarios and come up with an effective solution... in one paragraph! 

:-)

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Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.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Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.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