Why is Dotster silent about the Panix hijack?
Date: Monday February 07 2005, @03:55AM
Topic: Registrars

Sam Varghese writes "Panix.com was hijacked on January 16. One of the parties involved, Melbourne IT, has fessed up to its shortcomings. Strangely, the other main player, Dotster, is silent. (second visit requires registration)"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Why is Dotster silent about the Panix hijack? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 3 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Not quite silent
by tbyfield (reversethis-{moc.xinap} {ta} {dleifybt}) on Monday February 07 2005, @10:56AM (#14644)
User #44 Info
Better still, Dotster followed up on the incident by spamming past (and, I assume, present) customers—including those at Panix—with PR about their domain-locking service.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The Answer Is Obvious
by jberryhill on Monday February 07 2005, @05:39PM (#14645)
User #3013 Info
...and it gets at the heart of what is wrong with the transfer dispute policy.

The problem with the transfer dispute policy is that it practically requires a registrar to admit they did something wrong. American businesses operate according to the principle that to admit error is to accept liability. Nobody does that.

If the transfer dispute policy were accessible to registrants, instead of registrars, the transfer policy would make a whole lot more sense.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: