panix hijack press

Thu Jan 20 05:14:16 UTC 2005

Mark Jeftovic wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>  
>
>>(2) Registrants can't "lock" domains, it's a registrar-lock.  Users
>>can only ask that domains be locked.  Stupid policy, bad results.
>>    
>>
>
>.... under the new policy if the registrar
>employs it they must provide access to the registrant.
>  
>
I stand corrected (although I cannot find it actually _in_ the policy);
it's good to learn something new every day. 

However, that still looks to me like "Users can only ask that domains
be locked."  Unless you are claiming that users can send the lock
request directly to the registry, and monitor its status.

Thornton wrote:

>i dont think anyone is blaming the victim...what evidence do you have to
>support the domain being locked?
>
>  
>
I repeat, the domain locking red-herring has absolutely nothing to do
with this domain hijacking.

Gosh officer, if she'd only had a big padlock on her purse, I wouldn't
have stolen it.

Gosh judge, if she'd only worn running shoes instead of those sexy high
heels, I couldn't catch and rape her; the shoes made me do it.

Stop blaming the victim!

>a user can lock a domain..they can login to the control panel for there
>registrar and select registrar lock, registrar-lock, or lock and i am
>sure there are other registrars that word it even differently. once you
>select that it effectively locks your domain so it cant be transfered.
>
>  
>
Not that I've ever noticed.  Are you actually a network operator
anywhere?  Are you even _in_ North America?  Your email isn't....

But then, the domain locking red-herring has absolutely nothing to do
with this domain hijacking.

Stop blaming the victim!

-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32