“It is possible for your domain name to be transferred to another registrar.” – Network Solutions agreement, a disclaimer inserted to allow a BTAPPA!

This means, my friend, you and I could wind up customers of Go Daddy against our will!

On November 16th, an amendment to Verisign’s Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Aquisition became final after a month of public comment. The comments are unanimous that 15 days advance notice of transfer to a new Registrar is not enough time for us, the Registrant. Please view the announcement here:

Public Comment: Amendment for Partial Bulk Transfer in dot-COM & dot-NET
http://www.icann.com/en/announcements/announcement-16oct09-en.htm

Comments are linked to from above.

The history is: Neustar, which is the leader in security and has a tight grip on dot biz and dot us, applied for a BTAPPA process in 2006. Since dot biz fizzled as a new extension -that is – it’s #8 – it’s strong, but didn’t take off the way Neustar and investors had hoped, BTAPPA is a provision where the dot biz and dot us Registrars could trade domains, that is, aquire domains among themselves to soften the hit their investment took. Neustar oversaw it. Dot Biz represents some 2 million domains, dot com is some 80 million – they’re not the same! Yet . . .

Verisign got the brainchild, it would do the same for dot com and dot net! As someone posted on my blog, “This is beyond terrible.” BTAPPA doesn’t cover Registrars who go out of business and need a safe landing for their domains. It doesn’t cover Registrars that are de-accredited by ICANN: Those are covered by Part B of Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars: B. ICANN-Approved Transfers (http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm ). Verisign’s BTAPPA is not just about users with large domain portfolios who want to switch Registrars – there would be no concern on my part, in that case! That would be beneficial to the large portfolio resellers.

It’s about Registrars targeting domains they think are valuable, and acquiring them in a bulk transfer with only 15 days notice to the Registrant! If your domain is set to expire, newly transferred, or registered within the 15 days, you’re stuck. It would affect the small user, the little guy.

Network Solutions Alert!!!

Network Solutions slipped a disclaimer into the user agreement, in preparation for BTAPPA:

“Furthermore, you acknowledge and agree that pursuant to applicable policies adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) related to the transfer of domain names it is possible for your domain name to be transferred to another registrar even though the transfer has not actually been approved by you, and you agree that we shall not be liable to you for any such unauthorized transfers.”

- third sentence of item 12 under section A of Network Solutions Service Agreement, updated in October (click on Domain Names on the left): http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp

A few other Registrars have also inserted the dislaimer.

Thanx again for publishing, go ahead and publish the above, if you like. It’s hard to wrap our minds around, I get, we already suffer from fatigue from the Bernie Madoff’s and Wall Street white collar criminals.

Sincerely,
Louise

Would you check my rant on RecoverDomainName.com? You seem keen on picking up the nuances of ICANN bylaws, and it seems they slid something by the internet world in general which may have far-reaching consequences! ICANN is aware of me and sent a letter, which I published to RecoverDomainName with permission. This is my most recent correspondence to them:

January 28th, 2010

Mr. Rod Beckstrom, President & CEO
Mr. Patrick Jones, Senior Manager of Continuity & Risk Management
Mr. David Giza, Senior Director, Contractual Compliance
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601

Dear Mr. Beckstrom, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Giza,

Forgive me because I say something nice and mean well, and have trouble censoring myself and let it all fly out over matters I take issue with.

It is a mistake to adopt a “wait and see” attitude over BTAPPA for dot coms since there is 10% unemployment and some may depend on their domains for income. These are ones, like myself, without limitless disposable income to wait until policy changes correct matters, or even to draft a complaint to ICANN or hire an attorney. Was Verisign, or do you count on that some domain owners would not have the wherewithall to mount a defense? Defense of what, you ask? Defense of transferring to a Registrar not of the Registrant’s choice. Notice of pending transfer and ability to transfer prior is good, if expiration dates, or recent registrations and transfers didn’t limit the Registrant from transferring out. Expiration, registration, and change of domain name hosting dates are publicly available and could influence a speculating Registrar in his portfolio choice of the Losing Registrar in acquisition. That is, the Registrar could narrow its choices to those domains set to expire within 30 days of the sale, so that Registants can’t transfer out. The Winning Registrar in conjunction with public information available – which Verisign offers to filter and optimize – would be hugely advantaged to transfer domains regardless of choice of Registrants, based on expiration date!

It would end choice. The Winning Registrar’s ability to filter targeted domains based on expiration date would cause domains to be transferred, even with 15 days notice. Personally, I value choice in selecting a Registrar, and base my choice on the Registrar’s reputation: Are there online complaints about it? Is the Registrar on Symantec’s short list of malware distributors? What is BBB rating? Etc. With Verisign’s BTAPPA process, my choice is not the final word of who hosts my domain name. Verisign’s BTAPPA gives the Winning Registrar the final say.

(2) No limit of transferred domain name renewal [fee] hikes. Right now, the wording of the new gTLD Guidebook is not specific regarding fee hikes of transferred domains; that is, it doesn’t limit them. Feasibly, the domain that is transferred against the Registrant’s wishes because a BTAPPA took place within 30-60 days of expiration/transfer/registration, may be lost to the Registrant if the Winning Registrar hikes the renewal fee beyond his affordibility. There is not cap on transferred domain renewal fee hikes. This could happen.

(3) BTAPPA allows speculation of personal/finanacial records which are only public because WhosIs is publicly available. My SeawardPeep.com , a hobby site, is not valuable except a Winning Registrar might target it because he sees I am a good credit risk, having paid consistently since I registered SeawardPeep in 2000, and it has not changed Registrars or hosting, unless I paid late (effected when the hosting server switches to a parked page). All this translates to personal financial information I would prefer 3rd parties to not know and definitely not trade on! Until Verisign’s BTAPPA, Registrars couldn’t take advantage of my personal financial info to speculate. Now they can.

It is unthinkable, unDemocratic, and preferential to defend a process that interferes with customer choice in favor of big business. What may have satisfied a need for disappointed investors in dot biz, overseen by the standard which is the highest: Neustar, doesn’t have an application for dot com. Verisign’s BTAPPA makes it too easy for the greedy ambition of Verisign and the Registrars who wish to speculate, to manipulate domains. If Verisign’s BTAPPA were to only enable transfers of large portfolios of willing resellers, it would be advantageous. But that is not how the BTAPPA is written. “Partial portfolio” process allows Registrars to target any domains they want!

For purposes of disclosure, I request you tell me whether the policy-makers who passed Verisign’s BTAPPA process owned Verisign stock in 2009. That includes you three. It may be legal and fine, but it would be hard to distinguish in the public eye – maybe I myself would be tempted – for humans keep separate their private interests when they are so influencial on policies which govern the outcome of those investments. Did anyone on ICANN’s board own stock in Verisign in 2009?

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

XXXXXX Stephen Douglas Responds:

Louise, thanks for writing. I’m not sure of the angle you’re going for in the letter, but it sounds like you have some balls in writing it. Keep us updated on the responses.

My experience in the last five years working with registrars is that they have the ultimate positioning to nab any domain that is expiring, and see the good/bad data on it for consideration. ICANN rules this. Without me knowing your full issue, I can’t comment on it, but I’d be glad to post your emails to ICANN and their responses.

Cheers!

good up to date. I didn’t receive any promotion mail from them.

I had no problem with them to test their customer service!

But they have very low price $8.02 for .com, .org and .info
$6.64 for .net

Might be due to the lack of customer service they can offer the best price. (?)

I am very satisfied with Moniker and recommend them!

Keep it up Moniker!

The current leasing bylaws are a disgrace to our industry. Instead of drawing our attention to the next hot new extension how about nourishing the hand that feeds it! SURPRISE ? yes the lease holders NOT the registrars, which by the way also happen to be resellers, HOW COZY.

Thanks for the tips, when my portfolio grows i’ll surelly contact Fabulous.