I personally think that when a domain name expires, it should immediately go
"on hold" for a fixed period of time, maybe 60 days. If the owner forgot
about the expiration and could not be reached by email or regular mail, then
the fact that the domain name no longer resolves should be a clue that it's
about to be lost. If they go 60 days without noticing the domain is
deactivated, then they weren't using it for anything important anyway. At
the end of 60 days, if still not renewed, it should be released.
NSI has made a big deal about being unpredictable in their releases to
discourage domain name speculation, but this is a crock. The people running
automated lookups and registration benefit most from the unpredictability,
while "regular people" who want the domain have zero chance of attempting
to register at the right moment. Whatever the time frame for releasing
domains, it should be consistent and public knowledge.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Swerve" <shwa@swerve.com>
To: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>; "Chuck Hatcher"
<chatcher@ashland-ky.net>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Transfer of domain questions.: Let's make things safe andSmart.
> Off the top of my head,i think their should be a 60-90 day period for the
> owner to pay after their domain has expired. This should include at least
> one, if not 2 snail mail bills in conjunction with 2 or 3 email reminders.
> For some this might sound like alot, but let's take a long term look here.
> If someone is running their whole business as an ecommerce site, then
> perhaps they may register their name for five or ten years. Who knows if
> the contact email is still active, or whether the snail mail is being
> delivered properly. Obviously, in an ideal world, the owner of the domain
> should have things in order, but, that's just not the case with a
percentage
> of the general public. Remember, these are our customers, our friends,
and
> perhaps our selves. I can only imagine the devastation that could occur
to
> someone if they lost their domain name, and had built a business or vision
> on it for 5 or 10 years.
>
> And while, right now, securing domain names at the lowest price is the
wave
> , i see an excellent long term opportunity for RSP"S and registrars
offering
> premium service that keeps domain names securely in the hands of their
> owners. Securely defined, as secure from theft, mismanagement, and the
> dreaded "domain has been deleted for non Payment scenario".
>
> Any long term, hardcore,... visionaries out there?
>
> i've got some other ideas as well.
>
> Josh Melamed
>
> > From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
> > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:23:10 -0700
> > To: "Chuck Hatcher" <chatcher@ashland-ky.net>,
<discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > Subject: Re: Transfer of domain questions.
> >
> > At 07:07 PM 6/30/00 -0400, Chuck Hatcher wrote:
> >> To make sense of this mess, lets make a distinction between NSI the
> >> registrar, and NSI the registry. Most of us will agree that when a
domain
> >> name expires, it should be more or less promptly be returned to the
pool of
> >> freely available names. If this is to happen, then the mechanism for
making
> >> it happen must exist in the registry. On whatever day the registration
> >> expires (or the grace period, if any, is over), the registry should
drop the
> >> name. It shouldn't matter how screwed up the registrar's database is,
or
> >> how greedy the registrar is about considering expired domains
delinquent or
> >> repossessed. The registry should drop the name, period, removing it
from
> >> the hands of the registrar.
> >
> > Agreed. I would say, however, that there should be NO grace period. That
> > coming from a perspective of "If people see that a domain is set to
expire,
> > they should be able to know, to the day, when it will be returned to the
> > pool, so that any and all people have equal shot at registering the
> > newly-available name, should they want to."
> >
> >> In this case, the domain is in limbo, apparently until NSI the
registrar
> >> gets around to deleting it or auctioning it off, or sitting on it for
three
> >> years. NSI the registrar should not need to approve a change of
registrar,
> >> since their period of being the registrar has lapsed. They are, in my
> >> opinion, asserting control over a domain they have no right to control.
> >
> > Agreed, as well. It would be interesting to have a domain-holder attempt
to
> > register it with a non-NSI registrar, get rejected, and file a complaint
> > against NSI (the registrar) for holding the domain without cause.
> >
> >> Will NSI the registry allow any other registrar to get away with
> >> indefinitely holding an unregistered domain name? We don't know,
because
> >> none of the other registrars have been around long enough to have
domain
> >> names expire. (We can speculate that of course they won't, which means
> >> competition in gTLD registration is a sham, and that NSI does not have
to
> >> conform to the same standards as everyone else.)
> >
> > But then again, that "sham" is what many of us predicted all along. :)
> >
> >> How many domains does NSI currently have "on hold"?
> >
> > Better question: Where does ICANN define "on hold" status? What are the
> > conditions for behind "held" in the registry, but not LISTED in the
> > registry? I can accept that a domain will be on hold for non-payment in
the
> > event of a registration without payment (although I'd say that it should
> > just be "live" in the registrar's name, and let them eat the loss as an
> > operating expense involved in not getting pre-payment). I'm not sure the
> > shared-registry NEEDS an "on hold" status, and certainly not sure if it
> > actually defines one.
> >
> > D
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:42 EDT