ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

RE: [registrars] An Opportunity to Prove A Point - Hi-Jacked Name At GoDaddy

  • To: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] An Opportunity to Prove A Point - Hi-Jacked Name At GoDaddy
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:55:07 -0700
  • Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Lau <richard@xxxxxxx>
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.12.23

Ross, I agree, but registrars will also some direction about how the
losing registrar can demonstrate, for DRP purposes, who the legal
Registrant is/was at the time of the transfer. Or how to demonstrate
that the listed Registrant was a hijacker.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] An Opportunity to Prove A Point - Hi-Jacked 
Name At GoDaddy
From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, February 26, 2008 8:23 am
To: "Richard Lau" <richard@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


On Feb 26, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Richard Lau wrote:

> the TDRP is not relevant since
> the listed Registrant at the losing registrar authorized the 
> transfer out.

"Registrant" is a legal status, not a technical status. The term 
"listed Registrant" is meaningless. If the legal Registrant has not 
authorized the transfer, the transfer is invalid and the TDRP is a 
very reasonable venue. I think this distinction would be a helpful 
clarification for staff to make to the DRP providers.

-ross





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