> From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
> Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:46:23 -0700
> To: Swerve <shwa@swerve.com>, Chuck Hatcher <chatcher@ashland-ky.net>,
> <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> 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?
Hmm, i see it as a courtesy to the domain holder to protect their interest.
A courtesy that is potentially much more valuable to the present user/holder
than the benefit of making the domain available to someone else at the date
of expiry. Also, the grace period could be fixed at 90 days, which still
could allow for possible new domain owners to plan for the mad dash to
register that domain.
>
> 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.
In a perfect world, everyone's paperwork is in order, but the idea of a
grace period leaves room for error. Remember, that in some cases, it could
be a TEN YEAR period that we are talking about here.
back to you, D.
Josh Melamed
>
> 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