Changes

The company's blog is also dedicated in providing information and updates about the different events, issues and policies being discussed within the ICANN community and entire domain industry.

The company's blog is also dedicated in providing information and updates about the different events, issues and policies being discussed within the ICANN community and entire domain industry.

In 2001, a group of  OpenSRS RSP (Registration Service Providers) along with a number of Internet Service Providers ([[ISP]]'s) and Internet Presence Providers ([[IPP]]'s) wrote a letter to former ICANN President [[Stuart Lynn]] regarding the claims of Roger Cochetti, [[ Verisign]] Senior Vice-president of Policy that the company is suffering from a massive unauthorized transfer of domain names. According to him, 24 percent of Verisign’s registrants did authorize the transfer of their domain names out of Verisign. This prompted Verisign to implement safeguards for their customers within the legal framework such asking registrants to submit a notorized statement that they wish to transfer their domain names from Verisign to another registrar. Cochetti also requested ICANN to develop new policies regarding the issue. <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm Letter from Roger Cochetti to Stuart Lynn, 16 July 2001]</ref> The OpenSRS RSPs and ISPs/IPPs denied Cochetti’s claims and argued that the survey was inconsistent. The group explained that the ISPs/ IPPs handled the domain name registrations for their customers for many years with their consent. According to them, their customers expected that their ISPs/IPPs to transfer their domain names on their behalf when company’s like Tucow and BulkRegister.com offered competitive price for domain name registration. In addition, the group emphasized that the domain transfer were done to provide better service for their customers. In connection, the group informed ICANN that the strategy implemented by Verisign regarding the transfer of domain names is not effective and it is a delaying tactic until the domain names pass the renewal date and Verisign will have a reason to deny transfers and asked customers to pay the $35 renewal fee before releasing the domain names. They pointed out that Verisign’s action is anti-competitive and they feel offended of being accused of conducting“[[domain slamming]].”  They requested ICANN to reject Verisign’s proposal for the development of policies that prohibiting domain transfers.<ref>[ http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/walsh-letter-to-lynn-20jul01.htm Letter from William Walsh (and Others) to Stuart Lynn, 20 July 2001

In 2001, a group of  OpenSRS RSP (Registration Service Providers) along with a number of Internet Service Providers ([[ISP]]'s) and Internet Presence Providers ([[IPP]]'s) wrote a letter to former ICANN President [[Stuart Lynn]] regarding the claims of Roger Cochetti, [[ Verisign]] Senior Vice-president of Policy that the company is suffering from a massive unauthorized transfer of domain names. According to him, 24 percent of Verisign’s registrants did authorize the transfer of their domain names out of Verisign. This prompted Verisign to implement safeguards for their customers within the legal framework such asking registrants to submit a notorized statement that they wish to transfer their domain names from Verisign to another registrar. Cochetti also requested ICANN to develop new policies regarding the issue. <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/cochetti-to-lynn-16jul01.htm Letter from Roger Cochetti to Stuart Lynn, 16 July 2001]</ref>  

 

The OpenSRS RSPs and ISPs/IPPs denied Cochetti’s claims and argued that the survey was inconsistent. The group explained that the ISPs/ IPPs handled the domain name registrations for their customers for many years with their consent. According to them, their customers expected that their ISPs/IPPs to transfer their domain names on their behalf when company’s like Tucow and BulkRegister.com offered competitive price for domain name registration. In addition, the group emphasized that the domain transfer were done to provide better service for their customers. In connection, the group informed ICANN that the strategy implemented by Verisign regarding the transfer of domain names is not effective and it is a delaying tactic until the domain names pass the renewal date and Verisign will have a reason to deny transfers and asked customers to pay the $35 renewal fee before releasing the domain names. They pointed out that Verisign’s action is anti-competitive and they feel offended of being accused of conducting“[[domain slamming]].”  They requested ICANN to reject Verisign’s proposal for the development of policies that prohibiting domain transfers.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/walsh-letter-to-lynn-20jul01.htm Letter from William Walsh (and Others) to Stuart Lynn, 20 July 2001]</ref>

==References==

==References==