ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] FYI re: Transfers

  • To: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] FYI re: Transfers
  • From: elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:57:27 -0400
  • Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <069801c80058$85d3a020$6501a8c0@cubensis>
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <631B6E6E-F6F3-48F3-9DA5-F337487F6C88@tucows.com> <200709222024.l8MKOWQw013571@pechora3.lax.icann.org> <069801c80058$85d3a020$6501a8c0@cubensis>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

are you saying here that in your view the two behaviors referenced in the ICANN advisory, namely i) denying transfers in the grace period and ii) denying transfers for any change in whois information, are allowed for in the current policy? or are you saying they should be?


On 26-Sep-07, at 12:15 PM, John Berryhill wrote:

The transfers policy has been very effective at eliminating certain
practices, of which we need not recite the history, that were clearly
directed at shaking down registrants for renewals while denying transfers.
The policy does allow room for registrants to consent to a variety of
practices which are motivated by security.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>