I think Chuck's idea of Hold is a great idea, thus alerting the owner
because their site won't resolve, and, if i'm correct, email won't work.
Josh M.
> From: "Chuck Hatcher" <chatcher@ashland-ky.net>
> Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:41:30 -0400
> To: "Swerve" <shwa@swerve.com>, <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> Subject: Re: Transfer of domain questions.: Let's make things safe andSmart.
>
> 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