nanog mailing list archives
Re: New ICANN registrant change process
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:23:04 -0400
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
Seems to me that the proper thing to be done would have been for Registries to deauthorize registrars on the grounds of continuous streams of complaints.
<devils advocate hat> On what metric? Pure volume? Percent of registrations? type of complaint by similar x/y? </devils advocate hat> there are 'lots of complaints' against some registrars, but if you have ~20% of the .TLD market you're prone to get more volume than a 1%er, right? Also, this isn't REALLY the registrY's problem is it? i love how icann makes avoiding blame so easy.
Current thread:
- New ICANN registrant change process Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 04)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Mel Beckman (Jul 04)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Jay Ashworth (Jul 04)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Christopher Morrow (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process David Conrad (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Christopher Morrow (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process David Conrad (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Christopher Morrow (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process David Conrad (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Christopher Morrow (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Jay Ashworth (Jul 04)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Rubens Kuhl (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process David Conrad (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Jaap Akkerhuis (Jul 06)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Rubens Kuhl (Jul 07)
- Re: New ICANN registrant change process Mel Beckman (Jul 04)