Re: [registrars] Motion on Transfers Report
I have a question regarding the "Registrar Hold" that is a recommended
action in the report for the denial of a no-payment name . Can a registrar
still update a domain status from "ACTIVE" to "Registrar Hold" once a
transfer is pending ? I know I had trouble doing that before.
Consensus Policy Recommendations
24 A Losing Registrar may deny a transfer request only in the following
e. No payment for previous registration period (including credit card
charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous
or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In
all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold"
status by the Losing Registrar prior to the denial of transfer.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:06 PM
Subject: [registrars] Motion on Transfers Report
> As you are aware, the Transfers TF final report is complete and the Names
> Council will shortly vote on whether or not this document represents the
> consensus views of the community and whether or not it should become
> consensus policy.
> I believe that this is an emminently "implementable" report that prefers
> interests of our constituency and I will be voting to approve the report.
> But before I can do that, we need to get our voting software warmed up and
> run a ballot.
> The ballot that I propose we run (yes, this is a formal motion) follows
> below. We will need someone to second this motion. Friendly amendments are
> also welcomed. Note, this motion is worded such that if supported by a
> majority of the constituency, it will allow our NC reps to vote to approve
> the report. The report can be found here:
> I will be posting some thoughts on the final report later today.
> Motion #1
> "Whereas the Registrar Constituency remains committed to resolving the
> of domain name portability to the satisfaction of registrars, registries
> registrants and;
> Whereas the Constituency has been considering this issue since early 2001,
> Whereas the Constituency has supported the development of a consensus
> through the DNSO Names Council processes, and;
> Whereas the Names Council Task Force on Domain Name Transfers has
> and published its Final Report, and;
> Whereas this report makes 29 recommendations that ICANN can adopt as
> consensus policy and resolve the issue,
> Therefore, let it be resolved that the Constituency formally support this
> final report and direct the Constituency Names Council Representatives to
> vote in favor of this report at the December 14, 2002 Names Council
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> - Steven Wright
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog