ICANN new transfer policies take effect Nov. 12

[Mr Webname]

We arent allowed to post when we have been screwed over by other members ? ?

Dont you have a warning area for Registers to be careful about ?

I would want my fellow domain members to warn me of compnies and members that treat them like crap.

10. Be polite! We do not tolerate ANY rudeness. Any member who is intentionally unpleasant or disruptive will receive one warning (at our discretion), and if the member offends again the member will be banned without warning and without reimbursement.

Your post was rude and without any supporting content - if you have a problem with Moniker deal with them direct. You may start a separate thread dealing with your specific complaint as I have done with a complaint against another registrar but all posts should be polite and factual, supported with evidence.

 

[deter]

Your post was rude and without any supporting content - if you have a problem with Moniker deal with them direct. You may start a separate thread dealing with your specific complaint as I have done with a complaint against another registrar but all posts should be polite and factual, supported with evidence.

Polite ? So I have to be polite to registers that refuse to transfer when I tell them to transfer?

I dont think I can be polite to people like that ;is that going to be a problem ?


:-D

 

[Dave Zan]

I could care lesss about a secnd rate register like Moniker. But I also happen to know these people and think their ethics are sleazy. That's my personal opinon if you dont like then read something else .

That's understandable, Deter. Sorry to hear you definitely didn't have a good
experience using Moniker.

For me, many people get their bad experiences for the following reasons:

1. They just don't know how the business operates.

2. They make erroneous assumptions.

3. They don't do their research or even bother to learn more.

4. All of the above.

There are exceptions, of course. I don't know your specifics, and I won't even
bother to judge.

Have you ever had Monte Con screw you over ?

Nope. It's not that I'm defending, Monte: I just considerably understand how
the business works.

I'll always run the risk of getting screwed somewhere. That's why I'm always
on my guard, and should be if I'm responsible enough for my domain name...

 

[deter]

That's understandable, Deter. Sorry to hear you definitely didn't have a good
experience using Moniker.

For me, many people get their bad experiences for the following reasons:

1. They just don't know how the business operates.

2. They make erroneous assumptions.

3. They don't do their research or even bother to learn more.

4. All of the above.

There are exceptions, of course. I don't know your specifics, and I won't even
bother to judge.



Nope. It's not that I'm defending, Monte: I just considerably understand how
the business works.

I'll always run the risk of getting screwed somewhere. That's why I'm always
on my guard, and should be if I'm responsible enough for my domain name...

Not problem dave, I was just pointing out how easy it is to take one side of an issue without knowing both sides.

I do agree that alot of problems the registers deal with are from people that

1. They just don't know how the business operates.

2. They make erroneous assumptions.

3. They don't do their research or even bother to learn more.

4. All of the above.

I dont fill any of those categories those,I know how the business runs and I know when I ask for a transfer I want the name transfered not going to play little email and phone tag games. Thats really my issue with certain registers.

 

[Mr Webname]

Polite ? So I have to be polite to registers that refuse to transfer when I tell them to transfer?

I dont think I can be polite to people like that ;is that going to be a problem ?


:-D

Yes that will be a problem - for you.

 

[GeorgeK]

Monte: Is there a pattern to the list of fraudulent transfer attempts? If some gaining registrar(s) aren't doing proper authentication, they should be outed, and ICANN should do something.

 

[Dave Zan]

Monte: Is there a pattern to the list of fraudulent transfer attempts? If some gaining registrar(s) aren't doing proper authentication, they should be outed, and ICANN should do something.

If the gaining registrar only requires confirmation from the registrant or admin
contact via fax and takes it at face value without even emailing either one on
record, that poses problems.

Although the ICANN transfer policies state that there'll be a "standard form" of
transfers, it doesn't say if the transfers will be confirmed only via email. It
gave other options via "opt-in means".

How exactly should ICANN do something about those gaining registrars using
the fax authentication mode if it doesn't even "standardize" transfers?

It would be interesting if the other members who run registrars could post
figures for comparison as well, though understandable if not.

 

[Monte]

reported to ICANN. I can tell you that names are being called for all over the place....big problem with some, but not for us

[email protected]

 

[owen]

Hey gang,

A lot of you are emailing and IMing me about this so I thought I would let you know where Moniker.com stands on this.

We are treating all transfer out requests as fraud unless we have heard from you - to protect your domains here. Besides locking all of your domains by default, I and my staff look at each transfer out request and make sure it was authorized. We have yet to loose one name due to this high security policy.

[mod]Advertising only in the appropriate forum please.[/mod]

Monte,

Are you worried at all about violating the new transfer policy? I think in this case it is probably justified and with Moniker being a reputable registrar not really a problem. The problem I see is when it comes to incidents like http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=71907. It seems a user should always be able to transfer out from a problem registrar with minimal hoops to jump through. I think the answer is for ICANN to actually enforce their policies.

 

[Monte]

Owen,

We have clearly stated to ICANN and to our customers that we are more concerned about our customers and their domain related assets. We are now up to 42 fraudulent transfer requests coming from outside registrars and they have all been reported. If we were to just allow those domains to go, you can imagine the problems that would have caused for our clients.

I do agree that for the non-legitimate registrars, parts of this new policy make sense...unfortunately we all have to deal with the pros and the cons of the new policy and manage the rules very carefully.

 

[GeorgeK]

I got my first fraudulent transfer request yesterday, for hostingtalk.com (the name was locked, but they tried anyway....). I wrote to names4ever.com/aplus.net to learn the identity of the fraudster, but they've not replied to my request. The transfer email that Names4ever sent didn't seem to conform to the "standardized" form that ICANN requires, either --- although, I didn't click the "Click this link to confirm the transfer", to see if their website had the proper wording.

Here's what they sent:

------ transfer request ---------------
X-Apparently-To: [email protected] via 68.142.225.176; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:35:14 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [216.55.191.3]
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from 216.55.191.3 (EHLO relay.aplus.net) (216.55.191.3) by mta344.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:35:13 -0800
Received: from rodopi.names4ever.com ([216.55.150.20]) by relay.aplus.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iAO4ZC99065356 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:35:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from [email protected])
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:35:12 -0800 (PST)
From: [email protected] Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: hostingtalk.com - Domain Transfer Request
Importance: High
Content-Length: 810

Hello,

A transfer has been requested for your domain name hostingtalk.com.

To confirm this transfer request, simply click on the link below
or cut and paste the text into your browser:

https://www.names4ever.com/public/D...e=hostingtalk.com&ApprovalCode=***redacted***

If you use your browser, you will need the following information
to complete your transfer:

Your Domain Name: hostingtalk.com
Your Transfer Approval Code: ***redacted***

If you experience any problems during this process,
please contact our domain transfer experts at (888)301-2516
or email us at [email protected]

If you did not request a transfer, please ignore this message.
We will not transfer your domain without confirmation.

Aplus.Net
Tech Support Team
--------- transfer request ends ---------------

That doesn't seem to match the REQUIRED wording of:

http://www.icann.org/transfers/foa-auth-12jul04.htm

 

[seeker]

I keep getting them, (now up to 4 requests) from dotster...

 

[Dave Zan]

Monte, Owen, as both of you manage registrars, if someone starts a transfer
request with you (meaning either of you as the gaining registrar), shouldn't
your systems detect if the name is locked and say so immediately in your site
that it can't happen because of that? Or is the "autoNACK" the burden of the
losing registrar instead?

Based on the threads I've read here and others, it seems most people are
getting the auth emails from the gaining registrar, with a few from the losing
one (only those who either don't offer locks or whose names aren't locked).

Another thing: some of my friends tell me they're unable to transfer to either
another account within the same registrar or to another registrar if there was
any change made to the registrant name for any reason whatsoever; they
further elaborate they've been told by the registrar they'll be able to do so
after 60 days, citing the ICANN transfer policy.

Has the ICANN transfer policy really imposed this restriction? Or is this on a
registrar-to-registrar basis?

 

[Monte]

Davezan1 and all,

I can explain it in further detail, however, here is the link so you can all read the new policy in detail. This should address the majority of your questions: http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm

 

[Dave Zan]

Sheesh, Monte, I've been reading that the past few months, even emailed
ICANN about it...and finally got a reply after almost a month! :-D

I posted that question to help inform others as well. But I emailed you anyway
if it's something not exactly for public consumption, if you know what I mean.

But if you've no problem sharing the answers, so much the better.

 

[elsie993]

Hi all,

I'm new on this forum and have just read through this long thread.

I've also read Icann's transfer policy carefully.

Hence I have a newby question: what's so different about this new policy? It clearly states that transfers will only go through when OKed by the admin contact. What no longer needs to happen is that the loosing registrar also gets an OK. They can still choose to send an OK request but if the admin contact ignores it, they cannot block the transfer like it was possible before.

Is that bad? Sounds like a good thing to me. I don't see why it should generate more bogus transfer requests than before, since the admin contact still has to OK whatever happens...

Since people on this forum tend to have valuable high-profile names, isn't it fair to suggest that they would tend to get "hit" by fake transfer requests more than the average Joe anyway?

 

[Dave Zan]

Hi all,

Welcome aboard! k:

Hence I have a newby question: what's so different about this new policy? It clearly states that transfers will only go through when OKed by the admin contact. What no longer needs to happen is that the loosing registrar also gets an OK. They can still choose to send an OK request but if the admin contact ignores it, they cannot block the transfer like it was possible before.

Is that bad? Sounds like a good thing to me. I don't see why it should generate more bogus transfer requests than before, since the admin contact still has to OK whatever happens...

Basically you got them all right. Those who'll really have problems are those
who know little to practically nothing about domain names, especially owners
themselves.

We've isolated at least 2 potential problems:

1. If the registrar the domain name currently resides doesn't provide a locking
feature, or the domain isn't locked (a no-brainer, of course).

2. As a followup to no. 1, there are some registrars who require authorization
only via fax when they're in the gaining position, especially if they take those
faxes at face value.

Those who use that measure don't necessarily have to email the registrant or
the admin contact for authorization anymore. Thus, they'll notify the Registry
of that extension regarding the transfer and so on.

So if no. 1 and 2 occurs, and if the registrant or admin contact doesn't either
reply or even get the auth email in the first place, then the nightmare we all
want to vanquish forever can come true. :worried:

There's actually a third I have in mind, but I'd rather not discuss it out of fear
(or paranoia) someone here might get funny ideas. As one member here said,
"one can't be too careful".

Since people on this forum tend to have valuable high-profile names, isn't it fair to suggest that they would tend to get "hit" by fake transfer requests more than the average Joe anyway?

You bet. I won't be surprised if the top registrars get the most fake transfer
requests as well.

Even if your domain name is locked, it pays to be proactive enough to stay on
top of things as much as you can.

 

[elsie993]

Hi Davezan1,

Thanks for those explanations. I had overlooked the fax only aspect of things and that is clearly a potential loophole.

But I note that Icann has included a "transfer undo" feature to allow fraudulent transfers to be reversed. Does anyone know if it's already been used?

 

[TopNames.com]

SEDO advises against having to get approval from your register to transfer your domains:

"is also important that you make sure your registrar gives you the ability to unlock your domain at any time without having to call or email them. Otherwise, when you sell a domain name you will have to wait for someone at the registrar to process your request, and then the transfer will take more time, and importantly, it will take more time for you to receive your payment."

Couldnt agree more..this is a fast pace business people want control over their names..

This might work for a $20 domain, but not on a $20,000 domain. I want high security and that's why all my premium domains are with Moniker. I like the fact I have to call them to transfer a domain. This prevents someone who hacks an account from stealing all the domains.

Waiting an extra day to collect funds should not be an issue, you still get your money. Getting a $20,000 domain stolen and spending months trying to get is back is an issue.

It's a no brainer.

 

[Monte]

Actually TopNames,

As you know change of ownership happens in minutes at Moniker with our Push System. You do not need to move your domain to another registrar and risk it. 95% have accounts created at Moniker and then they push the domain to that account. Change of ownership occurs behind our security wall - no need for transfer out. You can actually receive funds faster this way than any other process available.

That's the no brainer!