RE: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] GoDaddy holding domains "hostage" via so-called "opt-in" procedures?

["Matt Mansell" <matt.mansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael

>> . The majority of the group prefer leaving this and other security
measures up to the registrar.
I'm in support of leaving this to registrars to decide.

Whilst we like our friends at Go Daddy and fully understand why they do
it,  this policy creates an effective monopoly of customers stuck in
this loop they can't get out of.  ICANN has two remits, promoting
competition and protecting security. I'm surprised such a level of
anti-compete has been allowed to run for so long as what is essentially
a breach of the transfer policy, albeit dodged with technicalities.

I listened to a call from our support guys the other day (One of many
I'm told) from a perfectly pleasant single domain owner who had wasted
an afternoon trying to deal with her transfer to us. The end conclusion
was quite literally that she was told only "Bob Parsons" could remove
this 60 day lock despite her request to have it removed.

I'm of the opinion that ICANN should take action against such a policy,
at the very least to help the 99% of good consumers who are being caught
up in this and locked to a registrar they don't want to be. 

I very much understand the balanced argument here, but wholeheartedly
wouldn't support its imposed use to the industry persay.

Rgds, Matt



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Collins [mailto:mc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 18 June 2010 14:59
To: 'George Kirikos'; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] GoDaddy holding domains
"hostage" via so-called "opt-in" procedures?


Hi George,

Welcome to the IRTP group. There has been much discussion about this
issue.
I understand the frustration. I have personally been inconvenienced by
this policy. As usual, there is a delicate balance between security and
convenience. One thing that came up in discussions is that hijackers
will often make a registrant change immediately before an
inter-registrar transfer. This leaves the hijacking victim without the
ability to use TDRP or our proposed ETRP to recover a hijacked domain
name because they are not the registrant at the time of the
inter-registrar transfer.

A 60-day lock increases the opportunity for the registrar or victim to
discover a hijacking before the domain can be transferred away. Despite
the potential inconvenience to registrants, I thought we should consider
making the lock mandatory for all registrars. My desire is to reduce
sales of hijacked domains and I thought this might help. The majority of
the group prefer leaving this and other security measures up to the
registrar.

Best regards,
Michael Collins

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:49 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SPAM] [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] GoDaddy holding domains "hostage"
via so-called "opt-in" procedures?


Hi folks,

I saw some interesting comments on Twitter from an ordinary user in
relation to GoDaddy's so-called "opt in" hold. It should perhaps serve
as a reminder why rules about transfers between registrars were created
originally:

http://twitter.com/wedschilde/status/16429902106

@godaddy FAIL. having to fight to transfer domain for
threecrowpress.com. giving 24 hours. ICANN complaint already filed.
#godaddyfail

http://twitter.com/wedschilde/status/16430649817

@Beshter @brk_nlssn i hate having to fight for something that's mine.
major #godaddy fail. sighs.

http://twitter.com/wedschilde/status/16430757083

@Hoshiko_Malfoy i need a tweetwar. godaddy (@godaddy) doesn't want to
release my domain name. i demand it release the hostage.

http://twitter.com/wedschilde/status/16430802773

@Beshter i've already filed an ICANN. they do this all the time. it's
commonplace. & in @godaddy math, 8.10.10 is 60 days from now.

http://twitter.com/wedschilde/status/16431350059

@brk_nlssn Holding threecrowpress.com hostage because for "internally"
opt-in security rules. i told them no. release it. bad @godaddy

I think this example goes directly to points (c) and (d) of the charter:

"c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant
when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does
not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in
hijacking cases;

d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding
use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should
not be applied);"

and in particular, whether some registrars use a creative interpretation
of "opt-in" to a process which registrants can't opt-out of, except via
a denial of service (which doesn't make it "opt-in" at all).

What are the "costs" to the public vs. the benefits? These are real
costs in terms of inconveniencing real users.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email (including attachments) is confidential and intended only for the 
use of the addressee(s). If you are not an addressee you should not copy it, 
re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should advise the sender 
immediately and delete your copy from your system(s). Do not copy, use or 
disclose this email. Mesh Digital Ltd do not accept legal responsibility for 
the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those 
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Mesh Digital Ltd.