RE: [registrars] Credit card fraud and transfers

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 01:02 PM 3/20/03 -0500, Monte wrote:
>Its not about being an adult, its about Fraud.  Adults are hindered with
>fraud every day and putting protective measures in place can only help this
>matter in my opinion.

Dear Colleagues:  What am I expressing so poorly that I am getting this 
kind of response?

Let me restate my earlier posting:

At 10:57 AM 3/20/03 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>The new transfer policy that the board will be voting on next week
>includes a new 60-day "no transfer after transfer" window (in addition
>to the old 60-day "no transfer after initial registration" window)
>intended to address the issue that you describe.

Dear Ross:  Sounds like a good idea to me.

However, what about returning a domain to the prior registrar after an 
accidental or improper transfer?

[Now, what am I asking is whether the "60 day no transfer after transfer" 
rule would *permit* the return of a domain to the prior registrar?  The 
cause of the transfer being overridden could be an inadvertent transfer, a 
transfer authorized by the admin contact but countermanded by the 
registrant, or even a deliberate case of slamming.  The cause is not the 
issue, the relaxation of the rule *is* the issue I am addressing.]

[I hope I have finally made it clear.  I'm against credit card fraud, I 
think the new transfer restrictions are good to assist registrars who have 
been defrauded.  I think two ethically minded registrars should be able to 
sort out the problem between them.]

[I also think the new procedure will reduce cyberflight by 
cybersquatters.  I think that is a good objective alone even without the 
credit card fraud issue:-)]

[I sincerely hope I have made myself clear this time.]

[I may have filled in the *background* until the *foreground* went 
*underground*;-} ]

Regards again, BobC