<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Transfer policy
- To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "tbarrett" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Transfer policy
- From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:17:45 -0500
- Cc: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcPwG9j8p7Q/z2uYT0+T7gmrXeK9UwAB8BIg
- Thread-topic: [registrars] Transfer policy
Tom - I also brought up this point during TAG deliberations, so it's certainly something to re-consider since it has gotten the attention of a couple of different folks.
Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 4:19 PM
To: tbarrett
Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] Transfer policy
On 2/10/2004 4:15 PM tbarrett noted that:
> Transfers are restricted until 60 days after initial registration or a
> completed transfer.
>
> Could someone explain why this same 60 day restriction does not apply to
> renewals?
>
It was felt that the pre-existing commercial relationship didn't
warrant the restriction. I'd put this in the "compromise" bucket.
Users were definitely interested in striking a balance between
restrictions and security that didn't always coincide with the
economic interests of registrars.
--
-rwr
"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
All life is an experiment.
The more experiments you make the better."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|