I urge you all to go to:
http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm
on the bottom of the page there is a feedback email link - use it! Let our
concerns be heard
cheers
Genie
----- Original Message -----
From: "John T. Jarrett" <john@logonisp.com>
To: <discuss-list@opensrs.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:51 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Domain name redemption: Supplemental paper / post-deletion
transfers
> This morning I went through and collected up 340 two-word domain names
that
> are either in use or expired and that all have the same first word. After
> parsing the Expire Dates, I get these results:
>
> 340 Total domain names with same first word
> 170 Expired - exactly half
> 47 Expired but still On Hold
> 25 Expired 42 to 295 days ago
> 13 Expired over 200 days ago
>
> Right at half of those expired are expired within the normal 45 day period
> and still not dropped. The OTHER half though...
>
> 100% of those held over 35 days (even Register.com says they drop after 35
> days) (and this includes the only one in the 40's at 42 days on this
list) -
> that's 100% folks - are being held by...drum roll please....
>
> 100% ____ VeriSign ____
>
> By this list alone, they had to have started this policy no later than
> mid-summer of last year as the eldest one expired on 2001-05-02.
>
> Statistics speak wonders sometimes...sometimes I just wish they were
> screaming a little quieter!
>
> John
> LogonISP
> domains@logonisp.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Genie Livingstone
> Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:27 AM
>
> Passing this on from GA list -
> Interesting how everyone seems to address everything in deleted
> process BUT domain hoarding of thousands of domains by Verisign
>
> AACI.COM
> Record last updated on 13-Nov-2001.
> Record expires on 16-Jul-2000.
> Record created on 15-Jul-1997.
>
> cheers
> Genie Livingstone
>
> Thomas Roessler wrote on 2/21/02
>
> > ICANN has published a supplemental paper on the Redemption Grace
> > Period Proposal,
> > <http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm>.
> >
> > In short, registrar processes remain mostly unchanged, registries
> > should be allowed to take a "cost-recovery service charge". (But
> > you read this on icann.blog already. ;-)
> >
> >
> > What's more interesting is the section on "Enabling Registrants to
> > Choose the Renewing Registrar". Yes, folks, you read this
> > correctly: What this paper seems to be proposing is nothing less
> > than post-deletion (!!) domain transfers without any involvement of
> > the loosing registrar. I sense a new work item for the transfers
> > task force when it comes to the implementation of this.
> >
> > Note, however, that this only makes sense when a hoarding policy is
> > introduced first: Using redemption for registrar transfers can only
> > work if registrant knows rather precisely at which point of time the
> > delete command will be issued.
> >
> > Comments? Should we possibly propose such a policy? If so, I
> > suppose we should have something ready before Ghana.
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:03 EDT