[190439] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New ICANN registrant change process
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rubens Kuhl)
Mon Jul 4 14:43:40 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <800550479.18808.1467654861589.JavaMail.zimbra@baylink.com>
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 15:43:35 -0300
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> I'll go ahead and assume I wasn't the last person to get this memo
> (courtesy
> Lauren Weinstein's PRIVACY Digest):
>
>
> https://opensrs.com/blog/2016/06/icanns-new-transfer-policy-will-impact-business-customers/
>
> It does seem that this is going to make life difficult for a bunch of
> pretty
> normal business processes.
>
> If you didn't know about it either... ask yourself why not.
>
Although I'm not a member of the WG that defined such policy, having seen
the many occasions where domain hijacks occurred, I'm totally fine with the
outcome. I only see real impact for "wholesale" registrars, like OpenSRS,
eNom and Endurance, since they have to figure out a way to be compliant
with policy without actually having contact with the registrants, and this
kind of problem will continue to haunt them as they just operate a way for
companies to operate in the gTLD market outside of its framework.
Rubens
