The entire mechanism is Wrong!
alex at relcom.net
Mon Jan 17 06:30:24 UTC 2005
> Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> writes:
> > Or perhaps do you mean previous owners can call in a "stop order" or
> > "dispute" the transfer unilaterally within X days of occurence, much
> > like it works for many REAL money transactions?
> That makes considerable sense. You should be able to call in, say
> "roll it back", and have it stay rolled back for a few days until
> someone can investigate.
It is exactly what I was talking about.
> If people like Melbourne IT are going to claim they can't act on
> weekends, it might also be sensible not to allow transfers to be
> processed between Thursday and Sunday, though honestly I think if you
> are going to be a registrar, you are going to have to deal with
> problems over weekends.
It is their dirty problem - if they can not act on weekend, they can not
maintain a registry, that's all.
> One more disturbing problem here -- it seems (based on external
> evidence) that someone managed to fake out the system. Although
> Verisign and Melbourne IT seem to think that the transfer was
> approved, neither Dotster nor Panix have any record at all of
> it. Dotster's records make them think they are still the registrar for
> panix.com. It appears someone cracked the system, though whether by
> exploiting protocol problems or in some other way isn't clear at all.
If I am allowed to say my personal opinion here - it more likely was a
technical bnug or human mistake, not a hack. But let's see. This case
shiould be carefully investigated, no matte if this transfer was legal or
More information about the NANOG