On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
You would have to. Otherwise, two quick transfers would defeat the
scheme.
An alternative approach would be to prohibit a transfer within one week of
another transfer.
The new (read: current, now) ICANN transfer policy does this. Transfers
canno
> Bill,
I'm not speaking for Bill. These are my views.
>You indicate "a" known former state, which implies that you'd allow
>reverting back multiple changes under your proposed scheme...
You would have to. Otherwise, two quick transfers would defeat the
scheme.
An al
At 3:03 PM -0500 1/17/05, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>...
>
>This will work even in the cases where the bogus domain registrant
>submits false contacts, such as happened in panix.com. There
>shouldn't be any reason to delay reversion to a known former state.
Bill,
You indicate "a" known f
s go awry, we go acorn or asquash [1]."
> (2) a 4 hour standard of promptness for all Registrars, starting
> from initial notice of any kind. That gives them enough time to:
Here's where it gets crappy. The gTLDs are in Reston, Reston, Toronto,
Toronto and Reston, Reston and New
Richard Cox wrote:
...
there were an obligation for every accredited registrar to guarantee
a response within a given timescale and on a 24/7 basis, to any
emergency request received from any other accredited registrar.
That "given timescale" is often called a "standard of
