RE: [registrars] Proliferation of registrar locks

[Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ross,

You can't seriously claim that the transfer policy is not open to misuse.

Stating that "the Registered Name Holder [must be] provided with the
reasonable opportunity and ability to unlock the domain name prior to the
Transfer Request", is *not* very clear.

As I remember it, (losing) Registrars have previously successfully argued
that requiring a fax with a copy of incorporation documents and/or driver's
license is a "reasonable opportunity and ability" to authorize a transfer. 

C'mon Ross, we can do better.

/n

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 12. november 2004 19:06
> To: Paul Lecoultre(CORE secretariat)
> Cc: Registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Proliferation of registrar locks
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 12/11/2004 12:43 PM Paul Lecoultre(CORE secretariat) noted that;
> 
> | I see a major issue on this behaviour as neither the 
> transfer policy nore
> | the dispute resolution policy consider this clearly.
> 
> The transfer policy is very clear on the status of lock. I'm not sure
> that I see what you are getting at - or at least I'm not 
> seeing the same
> thing you are - help me understand. :)
> 
> - --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~                       -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
> Skydasher: A great way to start your day
> My weblog: http://www.byte.org
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
> 
> iD8DBQFBlPue6sL06XjirooRAsB2AJ9NGha1MtqGxevu+y1V+KbZe1udxwCfVPKw
> /sh0AbI9p6uXGtnPNnsVerM=
> =m6jL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>