[registrars] Godaddy locks domains in for 60 days after a rant change

[John Berryhill]

>This is just a tactic to try to keep the domain via 
>auto-renew or hoping the new owner is lazy and forgets 
>after 60days and just leaves it there.

While the policy undeniably has that effect, it is not entirely fair to
claim that is the intent.  [1]

There have been instances where the policy has helped stop hi-jacking, as
Mr. Lau notes, and there have been instances where the policy has interfered
with naïve registrants' ability to fulfill contractual obligations made in
ignorance of the policy.

The larger issue is distinguishing among "default" rules determined by the
ICANN and registry contracts which can be routed around by registrant
agreement, and the "mandatory" rules which cannot.  The registrar transfer
policy includes several provisions for which their operative effect is
dependent upon "prior agreement of the registrant", or words to that effect.
This more general question applies to transfer issues, post-expiration
issues, and an increasing frequency of questions relating to whether
registrars may implement alternative and more efficient dispute resolution
procedures than, for example, the UDRP (which is also merely one of many
provisions of a domain registration contract).

IMHO, a more appropriate forum than this list for challenging another
registrar's specific practices with respect to the transfer policy may be
under the Transfer Dispute Resolution policy. As you know, Mark, any denial
of a registrar transfer can be challenged at the expense of the
non-compliant registrar.

For example, if one is of the opinion that a registrar cannot by contract
impose additional registrar transfer restrictions, then one might consider
challenging that opinion by (a) having a registrant(s) register a number of
domain names at that registrar, (b) waiting out the initial 60 days, (c)
changing the registrant, (d) initiating registrar transfers at a second
registrar, (e) bulk filing TDRP complaints when the first registrar denies
the transfer.  If one wanted to kick the nuisance level up a notch, one
could, of course, skip the TDRP and pursue the transfer denial judicially.
Presumably, the registrar would then have to reconsider the cost-benefit
analysis of the policy in question.

But do remember that determining intent on the basis of observed behavior is
almost always an inference, not a fact.

John

[1] In the medical context, this is called "double effect", such as when the
level of morphine required for pain treatment of a terminally ill patient
reaches the point at which the dose may be lethal.  So long as the intent
was reasonably understood to be pain relief, we do not consider the patient
to have been euthanized.  The behavior, however, is indistinguishable
relative to the intent.