Re: [registrars] DROA Notice

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jordyn Buchanan wrote:
> I think we're probably one of the registrars who Ross is asserting were
> "denying all outbound transfers".  Without re-opening an age-old debate,
> I'll note that although we did not permit transfers where we could not
> verify the registrant's intent to transfer, we certainly permitted a
> significant number of transfers away, so only rather creative
> interpretations of the word "all" would be applicable.
Actually I was referring to those registrars that were simply blocking 
all transfers. There were secondary players, such as RCOM, that were 
also doing what you describe. Both were the source of a sizable number 
of complaints.
> More importantly, as Tim points out, portability is no better under the
> new transfer policy--the percentage of transfers that succeeds seems to
> be no better now than under the previous policy, with the exception of
> names managed by registrants unlucky enough to misunderstand what
> locking does.
We've seen a significant decrease in the incidents of complaints in this 
area.
-ross