RE: [ga] Advisory: Availability of Bulk Transfers in Individual gTLDs

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny wrote:

-- so why
> couldn't VeriSign advise the public that a serious issue existed?

Because it was a termination notice, which would imply that Red Register
were given time to comply with the notice - pay up or else.

If Verisign were to advise the public that Red Register were in trouble that
would seriously damage the company's credibility and they could hold
Verisign to account.  Especially if Red Register then raised finance to
comply with the notice.  The damage to the reputation of the business would
already be done and Red Register would have little or no chance of regaining
its reputation.

On the other hand, there are procedures in place to safe guard the domain
name holders.

Best regards

Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 06 October 2009 01:17
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] Advisory: Availability of Bulk Transfers in
> Individual gTLDs
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05oct09-en.htm
>
> ICANN isn't in the habit of releasing advisories out of thin
> air, which leads one to ask, "what's going on here?"  What's
> the story behind this advisory?  Perhaps someone in the know
> might be willing to shed some light on the circumstances that
> prompted the issuance of this advisory.
>
> Other questions also come to mind -- for example, consider
> the last sentance in the advisory:
>
> "Furthermore, where a bulk transfer is approved by ICANN due
> to lack of a registrar's authorization within a registry,
> there is no requirement that domains in other TLDs be
> transferred as a result."
>
> If a registry decides to no longer honor a registrar's
> business (perhaps owing to the registrar's failure to make
> timely payments), wouldn't it be appropriate for ICANN in
> such circumstances to advise the registrant community that
> their registrations in other TLDs managed by this particular
> registrar might well be at risk?
>
> Also, shouldn't registries be stepping up to the plate and be
> making informative disclosures to the community (as well as
> to ICANN) when a registrar has defaulted on its financial obligations?
>
> The Termination notice sent to Red Register indicated that
> ICANN "has also been notified that Red Register is in breach
> of its Registry Registrar Agreement with VeriSign" -- so why
> couldn't VeriSign advise the public that a serious issue existed?
>
> A final question comes to mind in light of the bulk process
> used with Red Register -- the FAQs stated:
>
> Q.  If I have domain names with a registrar that lost its
> accreditation, will I lose my domain names?
>
> A. No. Your registrar's gTLD names will be transferred to
> another registrar, as described below. Two-letter
> country-code (ccTLD) names, such as dot-in and dot-us, are
> not affected by this process.
>
> So what process is invoked to deal with ccTLD names in such
> circumstances?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>