ICANN new transfer policies take effect Nov. 12

[EricM]

What registrar can I use to transfer domains using this new ICANN policy?
IE. What registrar does not email verify incoming transfers?

I tried with enom but enom still sends an email to the admin contact before it tries to transfer the domain from the loosing registrar to enom.

 

[owen]

What registrar can I use to transfer domains using this new ICANN policy?
IE. What registrar does not email verify incoming transfers?

I tried with enom but enom still sends an email to the admin contact before it tries to transfer the domain from the loosing registrar to enom.

Hopefully none. Every receiving registrar is supposed to verify with the administrative or registrant contact that the transfer in is valid. What you are looking for is a registrar that does NOT comply with the transfer policy and one that would just take a customers word that they own the domain. This would be bad.

 

[MonteMonte is verified member.]

Another reason why Moniker.com has the security measures that we do.....even after the new ICANN Policy!

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751981,00.asp

 

[elsie993]

Another reason why Moniker.com has the security measures that we do.....even after the new ICANN Policy!

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751981,00.asp

More disinformation IMO. I know your company has been selling itself as a more "secure" registrar because it doesn't follow the new ICANN transfer rules, but I still can't understand the logic behind your assertion, and the assertion made in the article you quote, that a transfer would go through whatever should the domain name owner not respond.

As I understand the ICANN rules, the new policy changes things for the loosing registrar, who's verification is no longer needed. That prevents people like Netsol from coming up with all these disguised verification emails to stop outgoing transfers. But the gaining registrar still has to obtain email verification for the transfer just like before. If the admin contact doesn't respond in the required time, the transfer doesn't go through.

So it's all good news for domain name owners.

 

[MonteMonte is verified member.]

elsie993 - sorry but that is not the case and we DO follow the new ICANN policy. We just have a theft guard opt in offering that provides even more protection for our customers which allows us to also require additional information from the requester of a domain transfer.

The facts are that there have been more than 1000 domains called for in error and fraudulently since the new policy. This is NOT good news for domain name owners.

In any case, I was just providing a link to a relevant article further stating the issues with the new process.

 

[Theo]

Monte, do you offer a lockdown service and at what cost (you can send me a PM on that please).

 

[MonteMonte is verified member.]

Yes we do and it is free.

 

[elsie993]

Hi mcahn. If you do follow the new rules, then apologies for suggesting that you do not.

As a registrar, you obviously have access to information that we do not. As such, I would really appreciate it if you could explain to me why these new rules are so bad. I am one of the (I suppose) many people who suffered from the abusive behaviour of registrars like Netsol who thought up all these systems for blocking transfers - one of the worst being the "obscure" second confirmation email.

As I understand the new rules, they protect the domain name owner from that kind of abuse. But they absolutely do not allow transfers to go through unchecked, as is implied by the new story you provided and many others I have read on the panix.com fiasco. That is what I meant by being good for domain name owners and that is also what I meant by disinformation.

However, in saying that I linked the article to your company's views, and that was unfair. Apologies for that.

 

[Dave Zan]

I am one of the (I suppose) many people who suffered from the abusive behaviour of registrars like Netsol who thought up all these systems for blocking transfers - one of the worst being the "obscure" second confirmation email.

Ideally all registrars should do this, so all domain name owners should expect
two confirmation emails, one from the gaining registrar and one from the losing
one. The new transfer policy eliminates the need for the losing registrar to get
a response from the registrant or admin contact.

As I understand the new rules, they protect the domain name owner from that kind of abuse. But they absolutely do not allow transfers to go through unchecked, as is implied by the new story you provided and many others I have read on the panix.com fiasco.

Correct. Unfortunately, Melbourne IT finally revealed what happened:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;2003001350;fp;16;fpid;0

Something confuses me about it, though:

The administrative contact for the Panix domain at Dotster, the company's registrar, was not contacted before the transfer went through, as required by ICANN. Panix also was left in the dark about the transfer and only realized what was going on when it lost control of its domain Saturday, Ravin said.

Does this mean Melbourne IT never sent the auth email to panix.com's admin
contact before notifying the Registry? Or was it the reseller that's supposed
to do that?

Guys, if any of you have an whois.sc account, can you check if panix.com's
WHOIS info was changed or un/locked prior to the hijack?

 

[MonteMonte is verified member.]

elsie993 - no problem.

ICANN had the right intension with the new policy. As everyone knows, there are many fly by night registrars operating now due to the expired domain market influx. Many of these registrars do not have customer service or support or even management interfaces for that matter to allow customers to manage their domains.

The intent was to help registrants complete transfers without having to jump through extra steps.....and to penalize those that do not follow procedure.

The results have proven to be disastrous. Unlocked domains are now stolen every day. Many individuals do not realize that there names are unlocked and probably do not even know how to manage their accounts. They were probably registered for them by hosting companies or designers no longer in business or they forgot passwords and log in, or just forgot when their domains expire and do not receive notices because their email has changed or email spam filtering etc.

When this happens, names are stolen. That is why before this policy and after, we have followed a very strict domain protection and security policy here. Now many that disagreed with it and fought me in this very forum, understand why we just don't allow domains to transfer because they have been left unlocked.

Unlocking a domain name is not authority to transfer a domain name. They are two separate actions. The new ICANN policy confuses these two actions and has created huge gapping holes in the legitimacy of a transfer request and approval process.

That's it basically in a nut shell.....the nut is cracked!