Speaking on Go Daddy’s tepid response to a series of malware attacks on its servers, Jason Remillard makes an interesting point on his blog: Could BP learn from our industry?
Perhaps what is really needed here is some good solid case law to remind vendors and service providers of their responsibilities.
Dear Ms. Timmons,
Thank you for your letter to Rod Beckstrom on 12 December 2009, and for your comment submitted on the Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition (BTAPPA) amendment in dot-COM & dot-NET.
The BTAPPA service was first proposed by Neustar in 2006, and approved by the ICANN Board in November 2006 for introduction in dot-BIZ. To the best of our knowledge, no issues have been raised about the operation of the BTAPPA service, including any concerns related to acquisition-related transfers from losing registrars to gaining registrars as part of the service or on the 15-day notice period to registrants. Continue reading
The question is very simple: which party does ICANN commit to promoting competition: Registrars (eNom, Go Daddy, Moniker), which would benefit Registrants, or Registrants (us), which would benefit Registrars?
ICANN's Core Values (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm): include:
"6. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest."
Could ICANN be any more vague . . . Continue reading
Patrick Jones, Registry Liaison Manager at ICANN, consolidated and summarized comments on the BTAPPA amendment:
Summary & Analysis of BTAPPA Comments
It is unanimous that a 15-day notice of pending transfer is too short:
The timeline for registrants [us] to respond was too short . . . the timeline should at a minimum match with the grace period for a domain name renewal.
– George Smith