The "hold" period could be subtracted not added. I.e. if there
is a policy to pay 60 days in advance for the next year everything
could be fine and the domain name could be released immediately.
Regards,
Doytchin
----- Original Message -----
From: ECS <edseward@cmpsource.com>
To: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Transfer of domain questions.: Let's make things safe andSmart.
> 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