The Transfer Dispute Policy does not apply in cases like Raven.com where the Admin Email was changed at the Losing Registrar. The TDP looks at whether the Gaining Registrar verified that the controller of the domain had permission to move the domain. Since the Admin Email had already (allegedly) been fraudulently changed at the Losing Registrar, the Gaining Registrar did the Transfer by the book and thus the Transfer would not be reversed. Am I wrong? (Please, someone, tell me that I am). Richard -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lecoultre (CORE secretariat) Sent: 07 August, 2007 1:39 PM To: 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] Grave Robbing and SEDO Fencing Hi, Although I welcome initiatives, I don't think that a 60 days obligatory lock after every transfers, modifications will help registrars, it will only complicate transfers by adding an unnecessary burden. The authinfo code has proved to be effective, even if exceptions are possible, such the raven.com case. The 60 days automatic lock done by Godaddy and others is an internal registrar rule that neither ICANN nor the registries are requesting(at the recent exception of PIR, if I'm right). In case of exceptional cases, we still have the Transfer dispute policy, which allow the registries to reverse wrong or fraudulent transfers that occurred in the past 6 months. In addition the ICANN radars is providing the direct email of people handling transfers and usually such cases are solved in a timely manner. I don't see the need to act in this specific case, we only need to increase the already well working communications between registrars (yes there are exceptions...). Best regards, Paul Lecoultre Tim Ruiz wrote:
Thanks Donny. You're right, it does say *may.* So perhaps that's another thing the RC should consider trying to change. I realize it may pose an inconvenience for customers who want to flip names as you describe, but it wouldn't prevent it. What it would do is add a layer of protection against hijacking.
I think the raven.com issue illustrates the potential problem with assuming that if someone has the authcode, the name must be theirs. I thought the same way about the authcode at one time, but various experiences have changed my mind. I think authcodes are a good tool, but only one piece of the security issue.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [registrars] Grave Robbing and SEDO Fencing From: "Donny Simonton" <donny@intercosmos.com> Date: Tue, August 07, 2007 6:27 am To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@godaddy.com>, "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@gnso.icann.org>
Tim, The ICANN transfer policy says that I "may" deny a transfer within the 60 days after a domain is transferred to us, it doesn't say that we "must" deny the transfer. As more and more registrants start selling domains stopping them from transferring a domain just causes more problems. We have many customers who flip domains every day. With the hopes of making a few hundred bucks here and there.
Ever since Verisign switched to EPP, my rule has been if you have the auth-info code you can do whatever you want with the domain, because it's yours.
Donny