We are telling our clients the same = WAIT 45 AND just tested the theory - last week had customer renew the domain at NSI - it was past expiration date, then we reinitiated the transfer, domain transferred over WITHOUT!!!! the year. I told the customer we will GIVE them the extra year and to do us a favor and call NSI about this incident. Customer was told by NSI that it is IMPOSSIBLE - THIS NEVER HAPPENS AND THAT THEY HANDED OVER THE DOMAIN WITH AN EXTRA YEAR.... case and point poyinc.org Record expires on 20-Aug-2002. Record Created on 21-Aug-1998.
4163553 poyinc.org Transfer Cancelled [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001/Sep/17 09:10:05 AM ---- NSI WOULD NOT TRANSFER AS DOMAIN EXPIRED 8/20 ---- CUSTOMER RENEWS THE DOMAIN AT NSI ---- DOMAIN GOES INTO RENEWED STATE AT NSI 4205248 poyinc.org Transfer Completed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001/Sep/23 09:44:56 AM ----- NSI HANDS OVER THE DOMAIN WITHOUT THE RENEWAL YEAR ==== we were just preparing this case for COMPLIANCE at OpenSRS so here ya have it! cheers Genie magi inc -----Original Message----- From: Scott Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:23:11 -0400 Subject: Re: 45 day rule now gone? >At 09:58 AM 10/1/01 -0400, Mark Jeftovic wrote: > >>We have been telling customers that if they get stuck at Netsol and >have >>to renew for 1 year, to wait 45 days after renewal before moving over >here >>otherwise Netsol yanks back the year added on their end, right? >> >>Well one of our customers called us today to say that they called >NetSol >>and were told that that rule no longer applies. >> >>Having said that, I have first-hand experience in being told >completely >>different (and often conflicting) things by different NetSol >employees, >>so I am putting it out here, anyone else hear anything? > > >The revocation of the year happens at the registry level with no >registrar >action - it is the default action. So, in order for them to properly >handle >this, they would have to explicitly make sure that transfers away that >are >in the window are renewed explicitly (again) before they move. This >would >infer a level of sophistication on their behalf for which there is no >historical precedent... :) > >Anything is possible, in this case I would put my money on >"mis-information", not sudden competence. I would love to be wrong >though! > >sA >
