DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [registrars] Transfers

Paul and David,

I would like to echo Davids concern and add that Verisign's auto-nacks
are by far the biggest problem at this stage, simply because of the sheer
volume of domains held through Verisign.

I would also like to reiterate that:

- Verisign uses loopholes in the transfer rule it has written itself
  in its registry role
- The auto-nack policy hurts precisely those registrars who abide by the 
  prior documentation rule
- Verisign causes large numbers of domains to expire by rejecting
  transfers, thereafter refuses to transfer invoking "non paid" status
- Many transfers are rejected despite confirmation, or no confirmation 
  request is sent
- Most of the domain names involved are legacy registrations
- A number of facts leave little credibility to a "customer protection" 
  -- Verisign's time to confirm is unreasonably short
  -- Verisign's confirmation method unreasonably cumbersome
  -- Verisign's confirmation requests are difficult to understand, 
     difficult to tell from spam 
  -- Verisign generates additional revenue with the auto-nack policy
  -- Verisign has not caused less erroneous transfers than other registrars
     in proportion to the number of transferring customers
- Verisign clearly has a dominant market position 

This of course is by no means an exhaustive list. The pattern is clear
though: The inadequacies of the transfer method designed by the Verisign
Registry and the barriers used by Verisign Registrar make the transfers
prohibitively costly to other registrars.

We had been told about a document from Verisign registrar, but there
is no need for such a document. Verisign must simply give up the auto-nack
policy and let its own registry division work with registrars
to improve the transfer mechanism. 

It goes without saying that Verisign's dual registry-registrar role,
its former monopoly role and its dominant position with respect to 
outstanding registrations should cause Verisign to exercise maximum 
restraint - even after ICANN's signature of the new agreements.



"Paul M. Kane" a *crit :
> Yes I too had thought we were expecting a document from Verisign Registrar so we could work together to form a common position (and avoid the possibility of 90+ multi-jurisdictional agreements......)
> Any news from Verisign Bruce??
> Best
> Paul
> dwascher@iaregistry.com wrote:
> > Mike,I have not seen much on the list about the status on transfers. I would like to see this again be put on the top of the agenda for our next meeting. With the information that we came away with from Stockholm were do we need to go. Our situation has not changed and I have encouraged our users (admin contacts / Telco's) and there users the registrants to send emails and call in trying to get this resolved. David Wascher
> > Manager IARegistry

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