There must be some period between the time it expired and the time it
becomes available for use by somebody else.
What happens if the domain name holder sent a check to pay for the
domain, but it was not received on time or it was received but not
credit to the account by the expiration date?
I think it is reasonable to suspend the domain name for 30-90 days after
the expiration before making it available for others to use.
I don't think holding on to expired domain names for a year or more, as
Network Solutions appears to do, is reasonable.
You would be surprised how many people don't pay on time, but respond
when their domain hosting is suspended. We send out three emails before
we suspend an account, but many times this is ignored. Or they don't
receive the email because they gave us a hotmail address that they don't
use to receive email. We suspend the account and get an immediate
response demanding to know why their site doesn't work.
We have stopped accepting accounts with hotmail and yahoo addresses
unless they also furnish us their ISP address. We lose a few because of
this, but eliminate a lot of headaches at the same time.
Yes, I know it is their responsibility to pay on time. I also am aware
that there would be lawsuits if the action you proposed was followed.
If you remember, at one time Microsoft forgot to renew an account. So
it is possible for anybody to forgot or for an error to occur.
So suspending the account for x period is a solution that ensures the
domain owner can not later sue claiming that they were not made aware
that renewal was due.
In my mind, a bigger problem are all the domains setting out there that
are not being used, but just held. There might not be a shortage of
prime domain names if there were a requirement that a domain name be
used within six months of registering or it was released back into the
pool for somebody else to use. A use or lose type of policy.
Which is also not practical. :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
To: "Swerve" <shwa@swerve.com>; "Chuck Hatcher"
<chatcher@ashland-ky.net>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Transfer of domain questions.: Let's make things safe
andSmart.
> 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