>>Just because a customer is stupid and fills out the "renewal notice" and returns it to DROA and then gets upset and says they didn't initiate the transfer doesn't make it true. What it does mean is that the customer is stupid. But DROA plays by the rules.>>
Yes, DROA may play by the rules. What that tells me is that the rules should be changed to disallow the method they are using to slam domains. I am also quite sure that there will be a special place in Hell for people that do business as they do, so they will get theirs. What % of customers that 'renew' their domains with DROA understand that they are transferring the domain away from their current Registrar? When this was first occurring a couple years ago, we found that out of the first 50 domains that DROA attempted to transfer, only 1 client understood that they were transferring away from us. Yes, customers may be stupid, but the transfer process should take this into account. I am sure that someone is going to say that we should educate our customers better. Yes, we can do a better job of education, but something is clearly wrong when a company's entire business model is built on tricking potential clients into misunderstanding the domain renewal/transfer process. We have locked all domains, so this no longer happens on a regular basis. We have since gone to a management system that locks domains on registration and transfer in. We also do not have customers unlock domains to make changes; our system transparently unlocks domains, makes changes and then relocks the domains for them. -AL -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Wilde Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:16 PM To: Christopher X. Candreva Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org Subject: Re: NY ISP's domain hijacked -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > It's 'perpetuated' by the e-mails my customers receive that say "We've > received this request to transfer your domain away from Tucows. Unless we > here from you, we're going to do it". They don't like that. It doesn't make > them feel safe. Even when they DID mean to transfer it, they don't like it. > "What if I was sick for a while, or on vacation" is the usual response. If they were sick or on vacation, they never would have gotten the e-mail from Tucows in the first place. The entire system is based on trust of registrars and registries not being bad guys. If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't be registering domains in the first place, because all hope is lost. If you DO believe that, then there should be no way a request would ever get to Tucows in the first place unless it had already been authenticated by the registrant to the gaining registrar. Did you and everyone else who panics about this miss that part of the new policy? Because it sure seems like it. If a gaining registrar initiates a request that was not authenticated by the registrant, they are subject to penalties from ICANN, and should be reported. But I've never seen that happen, and I'd be surprised if many others have. Just because a customer is stupid and fills out the "renewal notice" and returns it to DROA and then gets upset and says they didn't initiate the transfer doesn't make it true. What it does mean is that the customer is stupid. But DROA plays by the rules. The Panix case seems to be something different altogether. But we really have no clue. As Ross said, we don't have the facts of the case yet, so speculating about it is pointless. And going crazy about the transfer policy because of it is simply absurd. Tim Wilde - -- Tim Wilde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator Dynamic Network Services, Inc. http://www.dyndns.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFB6r1lT9UHzqLr6x4RAjOcAJ0ZyYVy3wyMUPyobb9AIuvfj8tdcgCffojE 4L8as9jFAeDgH/sz2TRM4pI= =17Nf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
