Re: [ga] Replacements for VeriSign registry?

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We found out early-on that the VeriSign Registry system would drop the
paid term, when there was a transfer within the 1st 60 days of that
term. We also found out that there was no mechanism for a refund to
the consumer - the consumer was stuck.

This rule was adopted as a work-around, but it would have been better
if VeriSign would have just re-engineered their system to handle a
transfer in the 1st 60 days, without adversely affecting the consumer.

I speculate that the 1/10 yr min/max registration term also has
something to do with the ability/inability of the VeriSign Registry
system, but I have no evidence to support that statement - purely a
hunch.


Friday, December 12, 2003, 9:30:46 PM, Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AG> On Dec 12, 2003, at 9:06 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>> (At the other end of the spectrum, ICANN's arbitrary rule that
>> registrations can't be shorter than one year has eliminated the 
>> possibly
>> of registries that deal in short-terms names, such as might be used for
>> movies or candidates or parties or other ephemerial stuff.)
>>
AG> The .nz registry offers short periods (3 months, 6 months and others 
AG> IIRC).

>> (These minimum and maximum periods were adopted with zero discussion, 
>> zero
>> debate, zero justification, zero explaination, zero anything.)
>>

AG> Much like the 60 day no-transfer rule on new registrations. What 
AG> happens if you discover the registrar doesn't provide the service it 
AG> promised? You're stuck in registrar-hell for the first 60 days.




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----