Re: co.za domain names & the ZACR
ox <[email protected]> Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:27:24 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.ioz |
|---|---|
| Organization | ox.co.za |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:00:25 +0200 Calvin Browne <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/07/2017 14:47, ox wrote: > > <SNIP> > > Okay, I understand that you are confused? > > Please read 9.3 - yourself. > > I refer you to POINT 9 (of 9.3) > > Nothing happens. > > So, there is a flaw in the system? not intended flaw? or what? > > Ok - I've confirmed that the co.za implementation does not match the > policy as published and the default action on the system is to deny > transfer in the case of no responses from a losing registrar (point 9 > of the table in 9.3) and registrant in a registrar transfer. > Busy doing the necessary stuff to ensure that the two are brought in > sync. This process is not straight forward, and I suspect it will > take some time to resolve. > > I'll make sure something gets to the list as things evolve. > Thank you. I will rephrase my previous reply to only reflect the further core and critical issue: It is further my contention that; 1. For the past few years, the EPP system, domain registrants as well as ZACR Registrars, were "protected" by this flaw/error. 2. It is a fact that the ZACR does not have the same level of protections as, for example, the .com Registry (on multiple levels) 3. When/If this fatal flaw is fixed to reflect the Policy, as per your response, it is my contention that there will be additional and worse issues than the "flawed" implementation, which has been operating for many years. 4. It would be a smaller change, in attitude and Consumer policy, to expect Registrars to honor requests for domain registrants whom no longer have access to the registrant email address and/or ZACR to assist, as it has been doing anyway, albeit as a "favour" 5. Should you proceed to "repair" your critical error / flaw - I note, for the record, that it will be increasing the business risk, operational risks as well as potential for abuse. Doing that without also implementing locks, checks & balances and other options, would be reckless. - And could be to the detriment of the South African Internet community. (and the country) Andre _______________________________________________ IOZ mailing list [email protected] http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz