ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Joker.com's unique transfer requirements


tim,

i couldn't agree more with you - i think i was trying to say the same thing.

the elements of implementation that are, however, unmanageble are:
 1) hazardous (to the registrant) implementation.
 2) registrars who do implementations based on local law rather than
icann/registry policy.


in any case, the registrant loses.

/n

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] 
> Sent: 28. februar 2003 13:55
> To: nikolajn@ascio.com
> Cc: rconnell@psi-japan.com; Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Joker.com's unique transfer requirements
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> RE: Locking domains and auth info codes.
> 
> Nikolaj,
> 
> The primary problem with either of these practices is poor 
> implementation
> by registrars.
> 
> If the lock is under the control of the registrant, where is 
> the problem?
> The Transfer TF recommendations covers this.
> 
> The biggest problems we see with auth info codes is that either the
> registrar hasn't implemented any reasonable way for the 
> registrant to get
> them, or they just screwed it up in the first place by 
> assigning the same
> code to all names. It's not the concept that's flawed. The Transfer TF
> recommendations covers much of this also.
> 
> Tim
> 
>  -------- Original Message --------
>    Subject: RE: [registrars] Joker.com's unique transfer requirements
>    From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com>
>    Date: Fri, February 28, 2003 2:22 am
>    To: "'Robert F. Connelly'" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>,
>          "'Registrars List'" <Registrars@dnso.org>
> 
>    Bob, et.al,
> 
>    I agree. The policy belongs nowhere in a competitive environment.
>    Joker/CSL hides behind consumer protection laws in Germany, but, in
>    our legal council's opinion, violates EU competition laws.
> 
>    Fact is that the registrant is the loser, here, as your 
> example also
>    demonstrates.
> 
> 
>    Likewise, we see several CORE members practicing consumer 
> unfriendly
>    behaviour like requiring registrants to 'open' a transfer slot by
>    faxing in an undefined template.
>    It strikes me that CORE (the accredited registrar) is unable to act
>    upon this, as administration is fully delegated to members (who are
>    not accredited).
> 
>    Another transfer policy that I would deam anti-competitive, is the
>    practice of placing names on REGISTRAR-LOCK, requiring 
> registrants to
>    unlock names before initiating transfers.
> 
> 
>    Finally, the challenges that registrants face across the line in
>    obtaining auth info codes, is simply killing.
>    This will become even more evident around the time of the first
>    renewals in the fall, when registrants will want to transfer.
>    The likely loser here will be the registries, as the 
> registrant will
>    consider him-/herself locked down, ultimately deeming it 
> worthless to
>    even renew.
> 
> 
>    /n
> 
> 
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:rconnell@psi-japan.com]
>    Sent: 27. februar 2003 22:04
>    To: Registrar Constituency
>    Cc: Duane Connelly; Mieko Umezu; Naoko Orishige
>    Subject: [registrars] Joker.com's unique transfer requirements
> 
> 
>    Dear Colleagues:  We have documents authorizing transfer 
> of a domain
>    from Joker.com.
> 
>    Though not required to, after the first Nack, we submitted these
>    documents, with the corporate seal, division seal and 
> analysts's seal
>    to Joker.com. They refused to permit the transfer.
> 
>    Their reason is that they do not accept *any* request for transfer
>    unless the *registrant* first open a ten day transfer 
> window prior to
>    the issuance of a Transfer RRP request by the gaining *registrar*.
> 
> 
>      Did the reason for the denial fall within the allowable 
> reasons for
>    denying a transfer under the Policy
>    
> <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appf-com-
> 16apr0
>    1.htm#ExhibitB> as discussed in Louis Touton's letter to 
> VGRS dated 27
>    August 2001
>    <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-to-russo-27aug01.htm>?
> 
>    Let's look at the provisions of Exhibit B:
> 
>           Registrar Requirements.
> 
>           The registration agreement between each Registrar and its
>           Registered
>    Name holder shall include a provision explaining that a Registered
>    Name holder will be prohibited from changing  its 
> Registrar during the
>    first 60 days after initial registration of the domain 
> name with the
>    Registrar. Beginning on the 61st day after the initial registration
>    with the Registrar, the procedures for change in 
> sponsoring registrar
>    set forth in this policy shall apply. Enforcement  shall be the
>    responsibility of the Registrar sponsoring the domain name
>    registration.
> 
>    [I don't see that the above applies to the present case.]
> 
>           For each instance where an Registered Name holder wants to
>           change its
>    Registrar for an existing domain name (i.e., a domain name that
>    appears in a particular top-level domain zone file), the gaining
>    Registrar shall:
> 
>               1) Obtain express authorization from an 
> individual who has
>               the
>    apparent authority to  legally bind the Registered Name holder (as
>    reflected in the database of the losing        Registrar).
> 
>    [We have that with the official, registered seal of the 
> corporation.]
> 
>                   a) The form of the authorization is at the 
> discretion
>                   of each
>    gaining                Registrar.
> 
>    [Yes, it is in the form we accept.]
> 
>                   b) The gaining Registrar shall retain a record of
>                   reliable
>    evidence of the                authorization.
> 
>    [Yes, we retain them.]
> 
>               2) In those instances when the Registrar of 
> record is being
>    changed simultaneously            with a transfer of a domain name
>    from one party to another, the gaining Registrar           
>  shall also
>    obtain appropriate authorization for the transfer. Such 
> authorization
>    shall include, but not be limited to, one of the following:
> 
>    [There is to be no change of registrant rights.  a, b and c do not
>    apply.]
> 
>                   a) A bilateral agreement between the parties.
> 
>                   b) The final determination of a binding dispute
>                   resolution
>    body.
> 
>                   c) A court order.
> 
>               3) Request, by the transmission of a "transfer" 
> command as
>    specified in the            Registry Registrar Protocol, that the
>    Registry database be changed to reflect the   new Registrar.
> 
>                   a) Transmission of a "transfer" command 
> constitutes a
>    representation on                the part of the gaining Registrar
>    that:
> 
>                       (1) the requisite authorization has 
> been obtained
>                       from
>    the                    Registered Name holder listed in 
> the database
>    of the losing  Registrar, and
> 
>    [Yes, we certify that we have done all that is required prior to
>    sending the RRP transfer request.]
> 
>                       (2) the losing Registrar will be provided with a
>                       copy of
>    the                    authorization if and when requested.
> 
>    [Though Joker.com did not request it, but we have given Joker.com a
>    copy of the authorization.]
> 
>           In those instances when the Registrar of record denies the
>           requested
>    change of Registrar,  the Registrar of record shall notify the
>    prospective gaining Registrar that the request was  denied and the
>    reason for the denial.
> 
>    [The reason put forth by Joker.com is that Joker.com will 
> not accept
>    *any* request for transfer in which the Transfer command is issued
>    *prior_to* a communication initiated by the *registrant*, not the
>    *registrar*.]
> 
>           Instances when the requested change of sponsoring 
> Registrar may
>           be
>    denied include, but are not limited to:
> 
>               1) Situations described in the Domain Name Dispute
>               Resolution
>    Policy
> 
>               2) A pending bankruptcy of the Registered Name holder
> 
>               3) Dispute over the identity of the Registered 
> Name holder
> 
>               4) Request to transfer sponsorship occurs 
> within the first
>               60
>    days after the initial registration with the Registrar
> 
>    [None of the above four cases apply to these cases.]
> 
>           In all cases, the losing Registrar shall respond to 
> the e-mail
>           notice
>    regarding the "transfer"request within five (5) days. Failure to
>    respond will result in a default "approval" of the "transfer."
> 
>    [Joker.com always sends a nack within 24 hours of the request for
>    transfer.]
> 
>    end quote and comments on Exhibit B:
> 
>    Now, let's look at the procedure that Joker.com demands.  These
>    demands are on the *registrant*, not the *registrar*:
> 
>                                          How to Change from 
> joker.com to
>    another Registrar
> 
>                                       Please go to Servicezone to
>                                       transfer
>    domains from joker to another registrar.
>                                       New procedure for transfers of
>                                       domains
>    from joker.com to another ICANN accredited registrar
> 
>                                       Law in Germany is oriented to
>                                       protect the
>    consumer. Joker.com is obligated to ask the owner and/or 
> the admin-c
>    for explicit agreement in the case a domain should be 
> transferred from
>    joker.com to another ICANN accredited registrar. Starting 
> 24.04.2002
>    joker.com introduced a new process for those requests:
> 
>    [There is no argument about the applicability of German law.  They
>    could satisfy German law by sending an Email to the registrant or
>    admin contact after receiving the request for transfer from NSI.
>    While we would be annoyed if they sent a complex message to our
>    Japanese customers and then nacked the request because 
> they did *not*
>    receive an affirmative reply, such is not the case.  The nack is
>    issued if the registrant has not gone to "servicezone" 
> (what ever that
>    may be) and opened a ten day window.]
> 
>                                           Step 1: Opening a 
> time slot of
>                                           10
>    calender days for transfers of domains at joker.com
>                                               1a. Joker.com will only
>                                               accept
>    transfer-request from other registrars if advised before 
> such request
>    arrives at joker.com .
> 
>    [Emphasis added by BobC]
>                                               1b. Advising 
> joker.com can
>                                               be
>    done by the owner or admin-c or billing-c of the domain by 
> opening a
>    time slot for transfer of the domain. Please go to
>    Servicezone to initiate the opening.
>                                               1c. As soon as joker.com
>                                               gets the
>    demand to open the time slot the owner and the admin-c are 
> notified by
>    email.
>                                               1d. If none of them
>                                               objects, but
>    at least one of them agrees explicitly within  5 calendar days, an
>    additional time slot of 10 calender days is opened
>    during which joker.com accepts transfer-request from other 
> registrars.
> 
>                                               1e. The owner and the
>                                               admin-c
>    will be notified of the result of that first step, i.e. 
> after 5 days.
>    If. If the time slot was opened, the owner and admin-c will be
>    informed at the end of the time slot if no transfer-request was
>    received by joker.com .
>                                               1g. If the TLD 
> is .info or
>                                               .biz
>    you need a so called auth-id from joker.com.  That auth-id must be
>    submitted to the registry by the new registrar. If the 10
>    days time slot is opened you will be able to get the 
> auth-id by using
>    the status request of transfer at the servicezone.
> 
>    [The above section does not apply to .com.]
> 
>                                               1h. During the 
> whole time
>                                               (5+10
>    days), but only if the domains is not already transferred, 
> the owner
>    and/or admin-c has the possibility to reject
>    the transfer.
>                                           Step 2: Initiating the
>    transfer-request at another registrar
>                                               2a. In addition 
> and after
>                                               getting
>    the notification from joker.com that the time  slot of 10 days is
>    open, the new registrar has to initiate the transfer-request
>    at the registry.
>                                      2c. Owner and admin-c will be
>                                      notified of
>    the result.
>                                               2d. Transfer-request
>                                               arriving
>    outside the time slot will be refused.
>    [Too arbitrary.]
> 
>                                               2e. Transfer-request
>                                               arriving
>    when a domain is expired will be refused. Be aware that 
> the registry
>    for com - net - org has a process of auto-renew, i.e. the domain is
>    temporarily prolonged at the cost of joker.com even if it 
> was not paid
>    by the customer. That domain is considered as expired and will be
>    deleted if the customer does not pay.
> 
>    [The above does not apply to these cases, though these 
> delays *could*
>    cause the registrant to miss its chance to transfer.]
> 
> 
>                                       Example:
> 
>                                       Day
>                                       01 Demanding the opening of the
>                                       time slot
>    from owner/admin-c/billing-c
>                                       02 email from joker.com to owner
>                                       and
>    admin-c asking for agreement
>                                       03
>                                       04
>                                       05
>                                       06 email from joker.com 
> announcing
>                                       the
>    result of the 1. step, start of time slot
>                                       07
>                                       08
>                                       09
>                                       10 possibly email to owner and
>                                       admin-c
>    announcing that transfer is enabled because a 
> transfer-request arrived
>    at joker.com.
>                                       ....
>                                       16 if no 
> transfer-request arrived
>                                       at
>    joker.com, email to owner and admin-c stating that time slot is now
>    closed without transfer enabled.
> 
>    end quote and comments:
> 
>    I see no relationship between the procedures set forth in Exhibit B
>    and the process demanded by Joker.com.  The are simply making it
>    extremely difficult for any registrant to transfer its domain to
>    another ICANN accredited registrar.
> 
>    The *portability* of domains is denied if Joker.com is the 
> registrar
>    of record.
> 
>    My posting on the Registrar Constituency mailing list brought forth
>    comments from other exasperated registrars who have been stymied by
>    the Joker.com system.
> 
>    Remember, we are talking about registrants in Japan where 
> English is
>    not their primary language.  In fact, they may not be sufficiently
>    capable of handling such complex requirements in English.
> 
>    Add to it the fact that English is not the mother tongue of whoever
>    translated the Germany description of the Joker.com rules into
>    English.  I have difficulty being sure I understand what they are
>    requiring.  For example, the first and second ten day 
> "windows" add up
>    to fifteen days;-(
> 
>    I have not considered any further implications of Louis' letter.  I
>    think it is adequate to consider Exhibit B.
> 
>    I suspect that Joker.com will ignore the TF report.
> 
>    Regards, BobC
> 
> 
> 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>