But my question - again - is why should a potential domain-registrant
be denied a domain they want to register simply because a delinquent
domain-holder hasn't paid their bill on time?
If you let it lapse effective 2/28/2001, and on 3/4/2001, I decide I
want to register widgets.com, why shouldn't I be able to? At that
point, your inability to keep track of your paperwork is costing ME
the ability to register the domain I want. You've got no "right" to
hold it past your paid time.
D
At 1:52 PM -0400 7/1/00, Swerve wrote:
>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