<<<
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
>>>
|