RE: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square one

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Mike,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I agree. And any registrar who purposefully makes it difficult for a
customer to transfer their name away will eventually be dealt with by
the market, if not by ICANN before. You can't make captives out of your
customers and expect it not to affect your reputation.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>However, it is unreasonable to expect competitors to not be wary of
each other. Reasonable attempts to safeguard the security of your
customers domains, and possibly their&nbsp;livelihood, should be
expected and allowed. </div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim<BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[registrars] Transfers: Back to square one<BR>From: "Mike Lampson"
&lt;lampson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, October 22, 2004 9:07
am<BR>To: registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: "Marcus Faure"
&lt;faure@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>I disagree that this is going back to
square one or is an attempt to "hijack<BR>the process." &nbsp;The URL
provided by Marcus refers to the preliminary<BR>guidelines, some of
which are ill-advised. &nbsp;The final policy guidelines are<BR>at this
URL:<BR>&nbsp;http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm<BR><BR>From
this URL, it states:<BR><BR>&gt;&gt; The Registrar of Record may deny a
transfer request<BR>&gt;&gt; only in the following specific
instances:<BR>&nbsp; &nbsp;.<BR>&nbsp; &nbsp;.<BR>&gt;&gt; 7. A domain
name was already in 'lock status" provided<BR>&gt;&gt; that the
Registrar provides a readily accessible and<BR>&gt;&gt; reasonable
means for the Registered Name Holder to<BR>&gt;&gt; remove the lock
status.<BR><BR>The above is key. &nbsp;As long as the Registrar has an
easy means of unlocking<BR>the domains, I am perfectly happy to our
customers deal with this. &nbsp;It is<BR>much better than the
pre-approve method used by Joker.com and the back-side<BR>approval
currently required by most major Registrars.<BR><BR>Network Solutions
did send out a notice to all customers notifying them that<BR>they
would be locking all domains. &nbsp;I am attaching a copy
below.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Mike Lampson<BR>The Registry at Info
Avenue, LLC<BR><BR>--------------------------<BR><BR>Dear Valued
Network Solutions Customer:<BR><BR>ICANN (the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers) has changed<BR>the domain name transfer
policy for all accredited domain name service<BR>providers. We are
concerned that this policy change puts your domain name at<BR>greater
risk for being "slammed" (fraudulently transferred). The
prior<BR>policy allowed you to expressly approve a transfer request
with your current<BR>domain name service provider before any transfer
would occur. The new<BR>policy, however, eliminates this express
approval safeguard, removing an<BR>additional protection against
unauthorized transfer requests.<BR><BR>To further enhance the security
of the domain names you have registered with<BR>Network Solutions and
to protect you against unauthorized or fraudulent<BR>transfers, we will
activate our free Domain Protect service for all of your<BR>domain names
beginning October 18, 2004.<BR><BR>Our Domain Protect feature blocks
domain name transfers until you, or your<BR>designated contact, turn
the feature "Off." This step allows you to control<BR>the
"transferability" of your domain names, and provides protection
against<BR>"domain hijackers."<BR><BR>If you have turned Domain Protect
"Off" in the past, we will reactivate this<BR>feature by October 31,
2004. Domain Protect is quick and easy to manage<BR>through your
Network Solutions account. Simply login and click on the domain<BR>name
you want to change. On the Domain Details page, you can turn
Domain<BR>Protect "On" or "Off."<BR><BR>If you have concerns about this
transfer policy change, you can contact<BR>ICANN directly at
icann@xxxxxxxxx.<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>Network Solutions Customer
Support<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Marcus Faure<BR>Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:57 AM<BR>To:
registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: [registrars] Transfers: Back to square
one<BR><BR><BR><BR>Hi all,<BR><BR>last Friday NSI has registrar-locked
ALL of its domains (without asking its<BR>customers), no matter if it
were end-customer or reseller domains. As far<BR>as I can see, all
major registrars have their domains on lock now.<BR>This will lead to a
situation where a gaining registrar will send the FOA<BR>to the
registrant and upon approval will fail to start the transfer,
meaning<BR>he will have to ask the customer to try to get his domain
unlocked and<BR>restart the process al over again.<BR><BR>Conclusion:
If we wanted to have a standardized transfer process, we
failed.<BR>Customers will still have to go through a proprietery "have
my domain<BR>unlocked"<BR>procedure, only that now the additional
overhead is mandatory. We have lost<BR>three years debating and the
result is a solution that is worse than the<BR>situation we had last
week.<BR><BR>Totally unhappy<BR><BR>Marcus<BR>CORE Council of
Registrars<BR><BR><BR>BTW: Maybe lock-"friendly" registrar should have
a close look at this<BR>excerpt<BR>from the GNSO
recommendation<BR>(http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm):<BR><BR>--
snip --<BR>9. It is recommended that the Losing Registrar use the EPP or
RRP command<BR>set<BR>equivalent of ?Registrar Hold? prior to receiving
a transfer notification<BR>from the Registry as a mechanism to secure
payment from a Registrant in the<BR>event of non-payment. The Losing
Registrar should not use the EPP or RRP<BR>command set equivalent of
?Registrar Lock? for this same purpose.<BR>-- snip -- </BLOCKQUOTE>