RE: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one

["Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

> >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 =93lock status=94 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 t=
hat
> they would be locking all domains.  I am attaching a copy below.

..and in that letter you can see that that the registrant has NOT been
asked if he really wants to be "protected". If the customer had wished to
do so, he could have turned on registrar-lock (Domain Protect in NSI
terminology) before. As we are talking about NSI: The NSI webinterface
does not know about authinfos, the term is even not explained in the NSI
glossary. You have to know that the authinfo exists and you have to
request it from support. But this is probably also customer protection.

Actually my bigger concern (well, more than a concern because I am very
sure about this) is that with the new default-lock policy in
combination with the new transfer policy less people will be able and/or
willing to transfer domains. This is exactly what the constituency did not
want. Again, NSI is a good example. If a domain is with an NSI partner,
the registrant has no chance to turn off "Domain Protection" except by
going through that NSI partner. And yes, partner domains were also locked.
So tell me who is being protected here.

Yours,

Marcus
CORE Council of Registrars


BTW:

Quoting from the NSI info mail:

> If you have concerns about this transfer policy change, you can contact
> ICANN directly at icann@xxxxxxxxx.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Network Solutions Customer Support

why is NSI hammering people to spam Icann?