DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report


I forgot to mention this on the last call, but I wanted to state the
rationale behind the following provision:

For EPP, the losing registrar must not refuse to issue an 'auth code'
because of lack of payment, because there seemed to be some discussion  and
disagreement on this.  What Registrars need to keep in mind is that even in
the EPP Registries, there is an ACK/NACK period in which a registrar may
deny a transfer.  To the extent that lack of payment is a basis to deny such
a transfer (which is still under debate), the NACK should be the method to
deny the transfer and NOT by denying a registrant his or her AUTH INFO code.

According to the Registry Contracts with the Registrars, a Registrar must
give the Registrant his or her auth code.  It is not conditioned on payment
(or lack thereof).  Whether a Registrar may NACK because of a lack of
payment is another story and one in which the implementation committee is
considering now.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 3:52 AM
To: nc-imp@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report

Hello All,

The attached draft is for discussion at our teleconference in approximately
11 hours time.

Bruce Tonkin

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>