ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one

  • To: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one
  • From: "CHAVANIS Vincent" <vincent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:21:47 +0200
  • Organization: Namebay
  • References: <200410221257.i9MCv2jd031186@brian.voerde.globvill.de>
  • Reply-to: "CHAVANIS Vincent" <vincent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear,

That is *exactly* what i thought too.
The new inter-registrar transfer procedure
is going to be "hijacked" by some registrars acting like this. :(
if we keep in mind that this new policy has been set up
in order to prevent abuses ...

regards

Vincent.

--
NAMEBAY
Technical Dpt / Service technique
http://www.namebay.com
Fax : +377 97 97 21 13
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:57 PM
Subject: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one



Hi all,

last Friday NSI has registrar-locked ALL of its domains (without asking its
customers), no matter if it were end-customer or reseller domains. As far
as I can see, all major registrars have their domains on lock now.
This will lead to a situation where a gaining registrar will send the FOA
to the registrant and upon approval will fail to start the transfer, meaning
he will have to ask the customer to try to get his domain unlocked and
restart the process al over again.

Conclusion: If we wanted to have a standardized transfer process, we failed. Customers will still have to go through a proprietery "have my domain unlocked" procedure, only that now the additional overhead is mandatory. We have lost
three years debating and the result is a solution that is worse than the
situation we had last week.

Totally unhappy

Marcus
CORE Council of Registrars


BTW: Maybe lock-"friendly" registrar should have a close look at this excerpt
from the GNSO recommendation
(http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm):

-- snip --
9. It is recommended that the Losing Registrar use the EPP or RRP command set
equivalent of ?Registrar Hold? prior to receiving a transfer notification
from the Registry as a mechanism to secure payment from a Registrant in the
event of non-payment. The Losing Registrar should not use the EPP or RRP
command set equivalent of ?Registrar Lock? for this same purpose.
-- snip --








<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>