Hi Doug - I thought that I did answer you question. > I/Compliance/Support has always (to the best of my knowledge) contacted the > reseller about any and all end user issues - it's only in our best interest > to communicate and point or direct end users to the reseller. To also let > the reseller know that their end user has contacted us is other side of the > same coin.
As for the Dotregister issue, I am discussing this with them right now - the email is in their court right now ( I am waiting for a reply to my last question to them). Paul Karkas Compliance Officer OpenSRS Tucows Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-535-0123 ext 1625 direct line 416-538-5458 1-800-371-6992 fax 416-535-7699 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Friend Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [domains-gen] ICANN Regulations on Transfers Hi Paul, I appreaciate that you will always contact the reseller in a situation such as this. From my reading of this thread, it sounds like dotregistar was not contacted and the domain was transfered out without their knowing this was happening. What I've been trying to get out of this is a clear statement of policy from Tucows that a domain won't be modified without without the reseller first being contacted. Thanks, Doug. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Register4Less.com Quoting Paul Karkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry Doug, I guess I read your email as you also encountering a situation > such as dotregister had expressed. > > I/Compliance/Support has always (to the best of my knowledge) contacted the > reseller about any and all end user issues - it's only in our best interest > to communicate and point or direct end users to the reseller. To also let > the reseller know that their end user has contacted us is other side of the > same coin. > > Paul Karkas > Compliance Officer OpenSRS > Tucows Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 416-535-0123 ext 1625 > direct line 416-538-5458 > 1-800-371-6992 > fax 416-535-7699 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Friend > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:45 PM > To: Paul Karkas > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [domains-gen] ICANN Regulations on Transfers > > > Hi Paul, > > So if my reading of your reply is correct, is we have a chargeback on > a .ca domain we need to issue a chargeback to Tucows in order to get > the domain on hold? Hmmm, guess I'll need to start buying my .ca > points separately... > > I didn't start this thread, so the domain in question's not one of > ours (it's with dotregistrar.ca). While I appreciate Paul that you > will contact us when there is an issue on a domain, it sounds like in > this case with dotregistrar.ca that they were not contacted, and that > the domain was unlocked and transfered out without their knowledge. > > What I'm looking for here is a clear statement of policy from Tucows > that says Yes, we will to the best of our abilities make an effort to > contact the reseller _before_ making any change to a domain. That > doesn't mean that Tucows won't make a change to a domain, but that it > will make a best effort to contact the reseller before making a change. > > Thanks, > > Doug. > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Register4Less.com > > > Quoting Paul Karkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Hi; >> >> Let me see if I can address all the questions asked. >> >> First of all, if a reseller has an outstanding bill with an end user for >> anything other than the domain name, then that is between the end user and >> the reseller - from an ICANN perspective there is no provision that > permits >> the reseller to 'leverage' the domain to collect for these other services. >> >> This is also reiterated in the Tucows domain locking guide - >> http://resellers.tucows.com/site/opensrs/resources/docs/lockingguide.pdf >> >> 2. Domain Locking Policy - IMPORTANT >> The domain lock feature is being introduced to provide Resellers with a >> method >> to help secure their clients' domains against slamming, hijacking or other >> forms >> of 'domain transfers' that have NOT been properly authorized by the >> registrant. >> Resellers are free to lock some or all of their domains, PROVIDED THAT IN >> DOING SO THEY DO NOT CONTRAVENE the wishes of the domain registrant. >> The feature is meant to help preserve the registrants desire to remain > with >> their >> chosen Registration Service Provider; if this is no longer the > registrant's >> wish, the >> domain lock MUST be removed at NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE. >> Resellers should feel free to package this security feature any way they >> like; it >> can be sold as a service or provided at no cost. HOWEVER, again, Resellers >> may >> NOT charge to have the domain unlocked so that their client can transfer >> their >> domain away. >> We anticipate no problems with this policy; however, should Tucows receive >> reports that this feature is being abused (in particular, applied against > a >> registrants wishes) Tucows will immediately unlock the domain in question > so >> that the registrant may resume control of the domain and we may take >> corrective action with the offending Reseller. >> We dislike imposing harsh language when releasing new features like this, >> but it >> is imperative that Resellers do NOT abuse this feature. >> >> Of course this all assumes that the domain name has been paid for. >> >> If the domain name is not paid for then Tucows may hold/lock the name. >> >> >> Essentially we ask that the reseller provide 'proof' of the non-payment >> usually by way of a chargeback. >> Once the chargeback information is received, Compliance will lock the name >> so that the DNS does not resolve, the name cannot be transferred nor can > the >> whois be updated - the name is pretty much placed in a state of limbo. The >> registrant is notified of this and told to contact their reseller if they >> have any questions - the reseller is bcc'd. >> >> In the case of locks and an end user request to unlock the name, I > *always* >> first send an email to the reseller letting them know that I have been >> contacted by the registrant or the admin contact. I do not take requests >> over the phone and I always ensure that any email request to unlock a > name, >> be sent from the listed admin email address. >> >> All of the above holds true as a process for most TLDS - however, in the >> case of .ca's Tucows does not have the ability to lock a .ca even if we >> wish - and CIRA does not recognize the reseller as having any standing in >> the case of a payment dispute. >> That is, CIRA contends that the accreditation agreement is with the >> Registrar, so, if a .ca domain name is not paid for by the *end user* and >> the reseller asks for the name to be locked. Cira will always take the >> stance that since Tucows was paid for the name registration (via the >> reseller) therefore payment has been received and that the name will not > be >> locked. >> >> Doug, do you have an example of a name being unlocked by Tucows without > your >> being contacted first? If so, would you please send it to me (off list) > and >> I will take a look . >> >> As for other registrars not abiding by the ICANN rules, I have two >> suggestions: >> >> 1) the registrant complaint forms are looked at by ICANN on a daily basis >> and forwarded to the registrar of record - >> http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi >> >> 2) If you are encountering problems in transferring names away from other >> registrars due to things like the 'GoDaddy lock' etc, please either email > me >> directly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or [EMAIL PROTECTED] - we have great >> relationships with some of the other registrars and can certainly assist > in >> getting names unlocked/moved etc. >> >> Let me know if I missed anything and feel free to send me any other >> questions that you may have. >> >> thanks. >> >> Paul Karkas >> Compliance Officer OpenSRS >> Tucows Inc. >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 416-535-0123 ext 1625 >> direct line 416-538-5458 >> 1-800-371-6992 >> fax 416-535-7699 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Friend >> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:52 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [domains-gen] ICANN Regulations on Transfers >> >> >> Hi again Ross, >> >> I am happy that Tucows knows and follows the ICANN rules. It's >> surprising how other registrars interpret these (GoD*** for example >> will automatically nack a transfer if there's been a contact update >> done within 60 days and tell the registrant that they can't allow the >> transfer due to ICANN rules). >> >> While the rules are what they are, it's how they're implimented that I >> think we're needing to flesh out. >> >> When a registrant contacts Tucows demanding an unlock, there must be a >> process to identify that the registrant is the authorized owner or >> admin contact for the domain. If you're unlocking a domain on the >> basis of a phone call, you could be potentially helping a domain >> hijacker. >> >> The process of verifying someone's identity will take some time to >> accomplish, and I think this would be the ideal time to bring the >> reseller into the mix. >> >> Again, though, my main point is that no domain should be modified >> directly by Tucows without the reseller being first contacted and >> being brought up to speed with the nature of the request. This I >> firmly believe can be accomplished without any violation of ICANN's >> rules, and I would like to hear a clear statement of policy from >> Tucows that this will be the case. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Doug. >> >> >> >> Quoting Ross Rader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> Doug Friend wrote: >>>> Hi Ross, >>>> >>>> My point here is this type of thing should never happen without the >>>> involvement of the reseller. A registrant should not be able to call >>>> Tucows and make changes in his account without the direct involvement of >>>> the reseller. >>>> >>>> I think we all understand and respect that Tucows values its image as a >>>> good-guy registrar and abides by its ICANN agreement. The agreement I'm >>>> pretty sure doesn't say that Tucows can't involve the reseller >>>> discussions with the registrant. >>> >>> I agree with you, these sorts of things should never happen without the >>> involvement of the reseller. But, there's no way of preventing a >>> registrant from finding a new supplier and asking for a domain transfer >>> to that new supplier. If they do, we basically have to let the name go, >>> except in these 9 instances: >>> >>> 1. Evidence of fraud >>> 2. UDRP action >>> 3. Court order by a court of competent jurisdiction >>> 4. Reasonable dispute over the identity of the Registered Name >>> Holder or Administrative Contact >>> 5. 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 Registrar of Record prior to the denial >>> of transfer. >>> 6. Express written objection to the transfer from the Transfer >>> Contact. (e.g. - email, fax, paper document or other processes by which >>> the Transfer Contact has expressly and voluntarily objected through >>> opt-in means) >>> 7. A domain name was already in ?lock status? provided that the >>> Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the >>> Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status. >>> 8. A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration >>> period. >>> 9. A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be >>> determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back >>> to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or >>> where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs). >>> >>> The list in inclusive, meaning that no other reasons are acceptable. >>> >>> We do try to bring the resellers into the loop to the maximum extent >>> feasible, but transfers are one area where there's not a lot of leeway. >>> I really learned a lot of lessons about "good policy" when I was on this >>> task force. The rules we settled on were far to prescriptive and don't >>> really work all that great in the real world. Nonetheless, they are the >>> rules we're stuck with. >>> >>> -r >>> _______________________________________________ >>> domains-gen mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> domains-gen mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen >> >> > _______________________________________________ > domains-gen mailing list > [email protected] > http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen > > _______________________________________________ > domains-gen mailing list > [email protected] > http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen > _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
