Re: [nc-transfer] FW: Decline of Transfer Request for Domain Name: spiregroup.com

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

To provide slightly further context, I receive up to ten of these a day from
Russ (he is one of our resellers). The volume is not constant, but the
dissatisfaction and extent of the issue are reasonably clear.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "Transfer TF" <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:35 PM
Subject: [nc-transfer] FW: Decline of Transfer Request for Domain Name:
spiregroup.com


>
> This is an example of a series of postings by Mr. Smith, on behalf of
individuals who have had transfer process problems.
>
> As chair of the TF, I've received about 6 other complaints.  The
complaints have all been referred back to the relevant registrar.
>
> The information below is provided as an FYI to the TF members. Some of you
are cc'd, but I wanted everyone to be aware of the issues which are raised.
>
> Regards, Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: admin [mailto:admin@consumer.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 6:09 PM
> To: Sudheer@aol.com
> Cc: 'Melanie Holloway'; touton@icann.org; michael@palage.com; 'Ross Wm.
> Rader'; jtamas@register.com; 'Jack Kerins'; ebroitman@register.com;
> mclaughlin@pobox.com; 'Wayne Hislop'; halloran@icann.org; 'John Nigro';
> 'Gomes, Chuck'; Mueller@syr.edu; tim@tmdenton.com; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
> bbeckwith@netsol.com; Juliano,Marie M - LGA; grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz;
> crusso@verisign.com; RJS@lojo.co.nz
> Subject: FW: Decline of Transfer Request for Domain Name: spiregroup.com
>
>
> Network Solutions (VeriSign) has locked your domain.  I have put the
> request through again.  All authorizations must be completed again.  You
> will need to contact them to have your domain unlocked.  I have copied
> them on this message.  Note your domain expires shortly so please
> complete the new approvals as soon as possible.
>
> Unfortunately you are the victim of one the latest domain name scams.
> Several registrars, including Network Solutions (VeriSign), Bulk
> Register, and Register.com are locking domains of customers leaving
> their services.  It works like this, the administrative contact
> completes the transfer approval request but the registrar who is losing
> the customer says "that is not good enough" and sends their own
> authorization request to the admin contact.  These authorization
> requests are often confusing, give a short deadline, or don't work at
> all.  When complaints are made these registrars claim it is for "added
> security."  However, the method they use to send out the authorization
> is exactly the same as the initial authorization (an e-mail to the admin
> contact) so there is no added security.
>
> ICANN has put out rules prohibiting this practice.  However, ICANN has
> received thousands of complaints and will not respond.  None of the
> registrars doing this will explain how they are able to keep doing this
> even though it is against the rules.  There is apparently some type of
> secret agreement to allow this to occur.  ICANN has set up a committee
> to look into the matter and has placed a Washington, DC lobbyist
> representing AT&T in charge.  Nothing has been done in more than year
> and they do not even discuss the real issues.
>
> See http://thenic.com/transfers_history.asp for more information.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OpenSRS Transfer [mailto:transfers@opensrs.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:14 PM
> To: srs@consumer.net
> Subject: Decline of Transfer Request for Domain Name: spiregroup.com
>
> Subject: Decline of Transfer Request for Domain Name: spiregroup.com
>
>
> Requesting Registrar: Tucows.
> Current Registrar: NSI.
> OpenSRS Order #Id: 5959358.
>
>
> Dear Consumer.net - TheNIC.com:
>
> The current registrar for the spiregroup.com domain name rejected the
> transfer request you submitted.
> Pursuant to established Verisign Registry procedures, the transfer is
> declined.
>
> Please contact the current registrar listed above for a further
> explanation of the rejection.
>