<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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 ? 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 ...)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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. 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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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. 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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>But I suspect even this will take some time to work itself
out.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Rob.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=438170523-06102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim
Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 06, 2006 3:57 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Larry
Erlich<BR><B>Cc:</B> Mark Jeftovic; Registrars Constituency; Richard Lau;
markjr@easydns.com; jwesterdal@nameintel.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [registrars]
Godaddy locks domains in for 60 days after a rant change<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>It may in some cases. While we try to build intelligent
systems we haven't completely accomplished AI yet :)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Tim <BR></DIV>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">--------
Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [registrars] Godaddy locks domains
in for 60 days after a<BR>rant change<BR>From: Larry Erlich
<erlich@domainregistry.com><BR>Date: Fri, October 06, 2006 10:11
am<BR>To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com><BR>Cc: Mark Jeftovic
<markjr@easydns.com>, Registrars
Constituency<BR><registrars@gnso.icann.org>, Richard Lau
<richard@lau.com>,<BR>markjr@easydns.com, tim@godaddy.com,
jwesterdal@nameintel.com<BR><BR>"I'm noticing that after a Godaddy user moves
a domain to another <BR>Godaddy account, or changes the registrant info of a
domain, they are <BR>enforcing a 60-day no transfer-out
rule."<BR><BR>Tim,<BR><BR>If a registrant makes a minor typographical change
to<BR>the registrant name is that enough for your system to<BR>trigger the
lock?<BR><BR>Larry Erlich<BR><BR>http://www.DomainRegistry.com<BR><BR>Tim Ruiz
wrote:<BR>> Both are incorrect. It involves a separate and voluntary
agreement <BR>> between us and the new registrant in regards to a
completely optional <BR>> process. We have just as many customers who
decide to transfer first, <BR>> then change the ownership. Our only concern
is in protecting the <BR>> interests of our customers and ensuring secure
transfers of ownership.<BR>> <BR>> Tim<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
-------- Original Message --------<BR>> Subject: Re:
[registrars] Godaddy locks domains in for 60 days after a<BR>>
rant change<BR>> From: Mark Jeftovic
<markjr@easydns.com><BR>> Date: Thu, October 05, 2006
2:45 pm<BR>> To: Richard Lau <richard@lau.com><BR>>
Cc: Registrars Constituency
<registrars@gnso.icann.org><BR>> <BR>> Yes, somebody
else mentioned that to me off list, to which I replied:<BR>> <BR>>
I think that's a liberal interpretation of this
paragraph:<BR>> <BR>> "A domain name is within 60 days (or
a lesser period to be determined)<BR>> after being
transferred (apart from being transferred back to the<BR>>
original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or
where<BR>> a decision in the dispute resolution process so
directs)."<BR>> <BR>> Because in the next section the
exclusions specifically define the<BR>> transfers as between
registrars:<BR>> <BR>> "Instances when the re! quested
change of Registrar may not be denied<BR>> include, but are
not limited to: ...<BR>> <BR>> Domain name registration
period time constraints, other than during the<BR>> first 60
days of initial registration or during the first 60 days after<BR>>
a registrar transfer."<BR>> <BR>> It could be that
sloppy text in the first paragraph opened the door to<BR>>
this. If a registrar is worried about the change of registrant they<BR>>
should satisfy themselves before executing it, it's a separate
issue<BR>> from a registrar transfer.<BR>> <BR>>
This is just a tactic to try to keep the domain via auto-renew
or<BR>> hoping<BR>> the new owner is lazy
and forgets after 60days and just leaves it there.<BR>> <BR>>
-mark<BR>> <BR>> Richard Lau wrote:<BR>>
> I could be wrong here, but I think the section where it
says:<BR>> ><BR>> > A
domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined)<BR>>
> after being transferred (apart from being transferred
back to the<BR>> > original Registrar in cases wh!
ere both Registrars so agree<BR>> and/or where<BR>>
> a decision in the di spute resolution process so
directs).<BR>> ><BR>> > is
being interpreted as:<BR>> > A domain name is within
60 days after being transferred. <BR>> > ...
where the word "transferred" is used as transferred between two<BR>>
> different registrants at the same Registrar.<BR>>
><BR>> > Probably not what the
author(s) intended, but as we all have<BR>> seen,
it's<BR>> > the letter of the (ICANN) law, not the
intent of the law, that<BR>> counts.<BR>>
><BR>> > Just my guess.<BR>>
><BR>> > Richard<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>>
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:24:58 -0400, "Mark Jeftovic"<BR>>
<markjr@easydns.com><BR>> >
said:<BR>> ><BR>> >>I'm
noticing that after a Godaddy user moves a domain to another<BR>>
Godaddy<BR>> >>account, or changes the
registrant info of a domain, they are<BR>> enforcing<BR>>
>>a 60-day no transfer-out rule.<BR>>
>><BR>> >>I don't think that
is permissable under the policy posted at<BR>>
>><BR>>
>>http://www.icann.org/transfers/polic! y-12jul04.htm<BR>>
>><BR>> >>Which only
provides that the losing registrar can deny a transfer<BR>>
if a<BR>> >>domain is within 60 days of the
initial reg period or 60 days of a<BR>>
>>previous registrar transfer.<BR>>
>><BR>> >>Has this come up
before?<BR>> >><BR>>
>><BR>> >>-mark<BR>>
>><BR>> >>--<BR>>
>>Mark Jeftovic <markjr@easydns.com><BR>>
>>Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc.<BR>>
>>ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225<BR>>
>>fx. +1-(866) 273-2892<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> --
<BR>> Mark Jeftovic <markjr@easydns.com><BR>>
Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc.<BR>>
ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225<BR>> fx. +1-(866)
273-2892 <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>