The notice was held back until today, hence the corrections not showing up.
Charles Daminato TUCOWS Product Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Tom Brown wrote: > > Isn't this in direct conflict with "domain being in arrears" being one of > the few 'officially valid' reasons for declining a transfer? (Not that I > expect any disagreement.) > > Sure makes one hate big companies. There are a lot of scummy small > businesses, but ... > > While I'm venting, Chuck, how come some of these 'October 21st' > corrections didn't show up until today? Or is that why the notice was held > back till today? (even at 4AM your time achieve.net was showing a 2002 > expiry [which is now correct since we renewed it.] in the RWI) > > Bill, do you mind being quoted? > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Charles Daminato wrote: > > > RRP business rules - if a domain is transfered within the 45 days past > > expiry, the registry will refund the losing registrar the fee initially > > imposed for the auto-renewal (which occurs at day 0) > > > > Charles Daminato > > TUCOWS Product Manager > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, David Harris wrote: > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > 5) The registry credits a year back to Netsol Registrar (because of the 45 > > > > day rule), however Verisign Registrar DOES NOT refund the renewal fee paid > > > > by the registrant. Here the bug comes into play... the year was not > > > > actually removed. > > > > > > What is this 45 day rule? Where is it stated? > > > > > > I've never heard of the registry giving a registrar a refund for a renewal. > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Courage is doing what you're afraid to do. > http://BareMetal.com/ | There can be no courage unless you're scared. > | - Eddie Rickenbacker > > >
