After Nov 12....

[RMF]

If you initiate a transfer of someones domain, and they don't respond, and the transfer goes through, do you legally own the domain?. I don't see how this is possible. It seems more like hijacking to me. But, with the new icann laws, it seems the original registrant allowed the transfer even without responding to the transfer emails.

So basically, if one of my names isn't locked, and someone initiates a transfer, and I'm unable to access my email for a week or two, will they get the domain and become the legal owner?.

RMF

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

This has been beata to death in a number of places, but the short answer is that transfers are to be initiated only by a person legitimately authorized to do so. If you initiate a transfer of a domain which you are not entitled to transfer, then you are engaging in fraud.

Additionally, there is a transfer dispute policy. The problem with the policy is that a transfer dispute cannot be initiated by a domain registrant - a dispute can only be initiated by one of the registrars in question. So, you have to ask yourself, how much is my registrar going to care about ten bucks. The general answer is: not much.

 

[Dave Zan]

If you initiate a transfer of someones domain, and they don't respond, and the transfer goes through, do you legally own the domain?

As long as it shows either you or your company holdings as the registrant or
registered owner of the domain name after transfer, yes. Otherwise, no.

So basically, if one of my names isn't locked, and someone initiates a transfer, and I'm unable to access my email for a week or two, will they get the domain and become the legal owner?.

RMF

If, upon transfer to the gaining registrar, it shows another registrant, yes. :dead:

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

No, they will become the owner of record. The fraudulent acquisition remains illegal. Theft can never confer good title.

 

[007]

This new system is like telling stores they can no longer use security systems, and then saying everything will be alright because people can only take things if they are the owner of the store. Otherwise it is illegal.



I see no reason for changing the system. It was fine before.

 

[Steen]

This new system is like telling stores they can no longer use security systems, and then saying everything will be alright because people can only take things if they are the owner of the store. Otherwise it is illegal.



I see no reason for changing the system. It was fine before.

Registrars with "security systems" too tight.