Re: [registrars] Credit card fraud and transfers

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

> if we put some extra time on the domain transfer process, it can only
help.

I've alluded to this before - perhaps I should have been more explicit -
*there is more time in the new transfer policy* than there is in the
existing transfer policy. For those of you that haven't read the documents,
please do so *now* - they have a direct and measurable impact on your
business and it is counter-productive to be discussing any changes to this
policy-space without an awareness of this specific document and the
implications of its contents.

The document can be found here:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
strars.html
The specific policy recommendations are here:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
strars.html#_Toc26444151
The specific policy recommendation that you are discussing is here:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-regi
strars.html#rec24

Changing this will require the implementation of a new policy development
process as this document has been deemed the consensus of the GNSO by a
unanimous vote of the GNSO Council.

In DC, we had a near unanimous indication of support for requesting that the
Registries provide registrars with a refund of unused years under certain
circumstances. I have heard nothing of this since the last meeting. Perhaps
an update of where this is at would be useful at this point. Getting a
refund of additional years is perhaps the most productive thing that we
could hope to achieve at this point.

Who had this action item?

Thanks,


                     -rwr




Got Blog? http://www.byte.org

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard