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 claxtoncpa@yahoo.com
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 claxtoncpa@yahoo.com
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 <sallan@opensrs.org>
To: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
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
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:36:44 EDT