[registrars] Godaddy locks domains in for 60 days after a rant change
Larry Erlich
erlich at domainregistry.com
Sat Oct 7 16:44:18 UTC 2006
Rob Hall wrote:
> Ok .. I have a question. And this is in no way trying to say Godaddy is
> doing anything wrong here, nor comment on their procedures or
> policies, I am just taking a poke at what I hope is an obvious question.
>
> If the Lock in question is at the voluntary contractual provision level,
> and the registrant is "requesting you to review it", would you not
> always remove it upon request of the Registrant ?
The answer to this could be yes and there could still be
a problem. There could be a significant amount of friction
in the process and/or aggravation for the registrant if all
they intended to do was change "assoc." to "associates" for
example.
What is really happening with the godaddy procedure is that
it is introducing friction into the process by locking a name
unless their system determines it's a minor typo. I guess
that is one character, or a "." or a "," etc. Not saying there
couldn't be other things. But anything else requires a phone call? And
many times someone will screw up and only hear "60 days lock..." and
not try any harder to find the real situation with what can be
transferred etc.
> Or is the lock not
> voluntary ? (or I guess, one could say that once they have agreed to
> the contractual provision, it can not be undone ...)
>
> But on the broader note, I wonder aloud at which point a Registrar can
> impose it's own contractual provisions that override policies like the
> transfer policy.
That's easy. Who is doing the enforcing? Who is going to complain,
and who are they going to complain to (that is going to do anything
about it)? At the very least I guess you could say that a registrar
could make any number of choices to control a registrant that fall
at, or slightly under, the radar and get away with many things.
> It would not be hard for a Registrar to put into place
> a non-transfer provision that lasts lets say 180 days, or a year after a
> renewal or other domain event.
>
> Or how about we just start charging a $50 admin fee to handle the
> transfer away. This fee would become due the second the transfer was
> applied for, so it would be a case of money owing on the existing domain
> registration which would allow for the transfer to be denied. hmmm.
>
> It seems to me that this may be a slippery slope to start down, given
> that the intent of the Transfer Policy is to facilitate and promote
> competition between Regsitrars. This has to be tempered with adequate
> security for our customers to ensure we are doing what they want.
>
> But I suspect that once we are in an auth-code world at the end of this
> month, that all should get much easier. The losing registrar should
> lose the ability to NAK a transfer at all, if the customer has provided
> a valid auth-code.
Not sure I agree with that, Rob. The presence of a valid auth-code
is an additional protection but end users aren't typically aware of
what they are getting into when they give out things like passwords
or auth codes if their web designer or tech support persons asks for it.
We get calls from customers everyday literally where they want a
password to give to a contractor/vendor that was just hired. And they
don't even know that their domain is being switched to another
registrar or even what that means.
> Hopefully, we get to a place where the transfer is
> immediate, and domains can no longer be "locked" from transfering. If
> you have the code, it goes. If you don't, it doesn't. Then we will
> have a fair and open transfer system that promotes competition.
Larry Erlich
http://www.DomainRegistry.com
>
> But I suspect even this will take some time to work itself out.
>
> Rob.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Tim Ruiz
> *Sent:* Friday, October 06, 2006 3:57 PM
> *To:* Larry Erlich
> *Cc:* Mark Jeftovic; Registrars Constituency; Richard Lau;
> markjr at easydns.com; jwesterdal at nameintel.com
> *Subject:* RE: [registrars] Godaddy locks domains in for 60 days after a
> rant change
>
> It may in some cases. While we try to build intelligent systems we
> haven't completely accomplished AI yet :)
>
> Basically, if the system thinks the ownership has changed, it will
> trigger the lock. However, if we're requested to review it and we find
> it was just something like correcting typos we will usually unlock it.
> In some cases we might do a little more due dilligence to be certain.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Godaddy locks domains in for 60 days after a
> rant change
> From: Larry Erlich <erlich at domainregistry.com>
> Date: Fri, October 06, 2006 10:11 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>
> Cc: Mark Jeftovic <markjr at easydns.com>, Registrars Constituency
> <registrars at gnso.icann.org>, Richard Lau <richard at lau.com>,
> markjr at easydns.com, tim at godaddy.com, jwesterdal at nameintel.com
>
> "I'm noticing that after a Godaddy user moves a domain to another
> Godaddy account, or changes the registrant info of a domain, they are
> enforcing a 60-day no transfer-out rule."
>
> Tim,
>
> If a registrant makes a minor typographical change to
> the registrant name is that enough for your system to
> trigger the lock?
>
> Larry Erlich
>
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
>
> Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > Both are incorrect. It involves a separate and voluntary agreement
> > between us and the new registrant in regards to a completely
> optional
> > process. We have just as many customers who decide to transfer
> first,
> > then change the ownership. Our only concern is in protecting the
> > interests of our customers and ensuring secure transfers of
> ownership.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Godaddy locks domains in for 60
> days after a
> > rant change
> > From: Mark Jeftovic <markjr at easydns.com>
> > Date: Thu, October 05, 2006 2:45 pm
> > To: Richard Lau <richard at lau.com>
> > Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> > Yes, somebody else mentioned that to me off list, to which I
> replied:
> >
> > I think that's a liberal interpretation of this paragraph:
> >
> > "A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be
> determined)
> > after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the
> > original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree
> and/or where
> > a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs)."
> >
> > Because in the next section the exclusions specifically
> define the
> > transfers as between registrars:
> >
> > "Instances when the re! quested change of Registrar may not
> be denied
> > include, but are not limited to: ...
> >
> > Domain name registration period time constraints, other than
> during the
> > first 60 days of initial registration or during the first 60
> days after
> > a registrar transfer."
> >
> > It could be that sloppy text in the first paragraph opened
> the door to
> > this. If a registrar is worried about the change of
> registrant they
> > should satisfy themselves before executing it, it's a
> separate issue
> > from a registrar transfer.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > -mark
> >
> > Richard Lau wrote:
> > > I could be wrong here, but I think the section where it says:
> > >
> > > A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be
> determined)
> > > after being transferred (apart from being transferred back
> to the
> > > original Registrar in cases wh! ere both Registrars so agree
> > and/or where
> > > a decision in the di spute resolution process so directs).
> > >
> > > is being interpreted as:
> > > A domain name is within 60 days after being transferred.
> > > ... where the word "transferred" is used as transferred
> between two
> > > different registrants at the same Registrar.
> > >
> > > Probably not what the author(s) intended, but as we all have
> > seen, it's
> > > the letter of the (ICANN) law, not the intent of the law, that
> > counts.
> > >
> > > Just my guess.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:24:58 -0400, "Mark Jeftovic"
> > <markjr at easydns.com>
> > > said:
> > >
> > >>I'm noticing that after a Godaddy user moves a domain to
> another
> > Godaddy
> > >>account, or changes the registrant info of a domain, they are
> > enforcing
> > >>a 60-day no transfer-out rule.
> > >>
> > >>I don't think that is permissable under the policy posted at
> > >>
> > >>http://www.icann.org/transfers/polic! y-12jul04.htm
> > >>
> > >>Which only provides that the losing registrar can deny a
> transfer
> > if a
> > >>domain is within 60 days of the initial reg period or 60
> days of a
> > >>previous registrar transfer.
> > >>
> > >>Has this come up before?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>-mark
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>Mark Jeftovic <markjr at easydns.com>
> > >>Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc.
> > >>ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225
> > >>fx. +1-(866) 273-2892
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Jeftovic <markjr at easydns.com>
> > Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc.
> > ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225
> > fx. +1-(866) 273-2892
> >
More information about the registrars
mailing list