RE: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ROSS: would this not violate the new transfers policy?? Can anyone from the
trfer task force comment?

bhavin



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CHAVANIS Vincent
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 6:52 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one
> 
> 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 --
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
>