I would suggest lobbying ICANN for a change in their policy/requirements,
if you do want to see the losing registrar due the confirmation instead of
the gaining registrar.
If I remember correctly, the gaining registrar was chosen to confirm the
transfer due to all of the other registrars fears that network solutions
would block all transfers with excuses like "we never received a
confirmation". This is sort of what register.com is trying to do with the
confusing e-mails they currently send out (in violation of the ICANN
policy).
Also, the gaining registrar must show that they really did receive
confirmation of the transfer if asked by ICANN, otherwise they risk losing
accreditation.
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, JB Segal wrote:
> Quoth Ross Wm. Rader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > > Personally, I think that the losing Registrar *should* confirm with the
> > > Admin contact before a Registrar transfer goes through.
> >
> > I'd be curious to know why.
> >
> > -rwr
> Basically, if someone's going to 'slam' you, as this effectively is, is there
> a reason to believe that they'll await your confirmation and not just lie
> about getting it? The presumption of sleaziness is already there in the
> initial attempt to steal the registration, thus, the losing registrar DOES
> have a legit. reason to question xfers.
>
> As the PITA factor is high in correcting such things, safety nets are not
> bad, per se.
>
> JB
