I think it's just like evicting a tenant whose lease has expired from their
home - there is some leeway allowed to the former tenant, and some
procedures that must be followed to get rid of them.
I would find most any reasonable policy acceptable - whether 0 days or 90
days grace period - as long as it was consistently and fairly applied to
everyone. If 0 days, there would be opportunity for a value-added service
to auto-renew registrations, and probably for "domain name insurance" (if it
doesn't already exist).
----- 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 2:46 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