RE: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one

[Mike Lampson <lampson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Correction to typos in my original post:

>> As long as the *RegistrANT* has an easy means of unlocking
>> the domains, I am perfectly happy to have our customers deal
>> with this.

Regards,

_Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Lampson
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:08 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Marcus Faure
Subject: RE: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one


I disagree that this is going back to square one or is an attempt to "hijack
the process."  The URL provided by Marcus refers to the preliminary
guidelines, some of which are ill-advised.  The final policy guidelines are
at this URL:
  http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm

>From this URL, it states:

>> The Registrar of Record may deny a transfer request
>> only in the following specific instances:
    .
    .
>> 7. A domain name was already in “lock status” provided
>> that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and
>> reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to
>> remove the lock status.

The above is key.  As long as the Registrar has an easy means of unlocking
the domains, I am perfectly happy to our customers deal with this.  It is
much better than the pre-approve method used by Joker.com and the back-side
approval currently required by most major Registrars.

Network Solutions did send out a notice to all customers notifying them that
they would be locking all domains.  I am attaching a copy below.

Regards,

Mike Lampson
The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC

--------------------------

Dear Valued Network Solutions Customer:

ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has changed
the domain name transfer policy for all accredited domain name service
providers. We are concerned that this policy change puts your domain name at
greater risk for being "slammed" (fraudulently transferred). The prior
policy allowed you to expressly approve a transfer request with your current
domain name service provider before any transfer would occur. The new
policy, however, eliminates this express approval safeguard, removing an
additional protection against unauthorized transfer requests.

To further enhance the security of the domain names you have registered with
Network Solutions and to protect you against unauthorized or fraudulent
transfers, we will activate our free Domain Protect service for all of your
domain names beginning October 18, 2004.

Our Domain Protect feature blocks domain name transfers until you, or your
designated contact, turn the feature "Off." This step allows you to control
the "transferability" of your domain names, and provides protection against
"domain hijackers."

If you have turned Domain Protect "Off" in the past, we will reactivate this
feature by October 31, 2004. Domain Protect is quick and easy to manage
through your Network Solutions account. Simply login and click on the domain
name you want to change. On the Domain Details page, you can turn Domain
Protect "On" or "Off."

If you have concerns about this transfer policy change, you can contact
ICANN directly at icann@xxxxxxxxx.

Sincerely,

Network Solutions Customer Support




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Marcus Faure
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:57 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
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 --