Re: [ga] Transfer TF / deletions / WG

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

Sounds like a most reasonable proposition, one that might actually bare some 
fruit for the "problem" at hand instead of fast marketing ideas, to which i 
might add we can add another 10 if need be with likewise "funny" results for 
the registrars or the registry and even some in which the re-sellers (i know 
they don't exits) can make some pennies, but of course never the "inventor" 
of said domain.

Did we btw, ever emphasise that due to the "difficulties" and "barriers" to 
"proof" ownership of a domain AND the lack of a decent registry with actual 
correct addresses and or email-addresses, people loose domains no matter 
what? Did we know that often they happen to be the most sought after domains?
Do we honestly think that those "valuable" domains are only valuable to some 
speculator or us?  Do we really think that had the owner been able, or had he 
existed, that he would not "cash in" on this domain, once he no longer wanted 
it?  Or are we so blind in seeking for more money making ways that we simply 
forget these facts?

I have yet to see one person asking why such "vauable" domains get on a 
deletion list.
But once i saw someone (sorry forgot who) mention one of the few "facts" that 
passed by, once an owner no longer wishes to renew his domain, it becomes 
non-existant.<period>
non existant means that anyone in the world can register said domain, without 
any additional cost, it becomes a "normal" new registration.

NO ONE owns the domain BUT the registrant until he drops it.
Domains can have added value, due to the nature of their name or due to the 
work of the previous registrant, but in both cases it remains HIS or HERS 
until deletion, after that it no longer exist.

considering this, can we please drop all these great "auction", "subscription 
(without telling the owner)" ideas,  you are trying to sell air, very thin 
air.

There is one basis in trade: in order to sell something, you must first own 
it, or have the permission from the owner to sell it. I see neither covered 
in all of these fancy proposals.

And finally, the problems of Verisign may be known to (some?) registrars, 
they are not known to the community at large, hence not to the full GA 
subscribers and participants, NOR do i see any action taken from the side of 
Verisign to address these problems or to explain as to WHY they do not take 
any action. All that is known is the information that resulted in the batch 
drop method, after hording millions of domains (didn't mr. Gomes state that 
never a domain was dropped late?) and this information clearly indicates two 
things: 1. verisign has a TECHNICAL problem (the registry) and 2. Verisign is 
looking for more revenue.

Again i emplore, let's get to basics of the problems, and this idea/proposal 
from mr. Dieker seems a good start.

abel wisman



On Tuesday 08 January 2002 1:55 am, Eric Dierker wrote:
> As a candidate for the TF on transfers and as
> an interested party on deletions I would ask
> if this would not be a proper area for the
> Transfer TF.
>
> (don't think for a second I suggest any reduction
> of the great input here - in fact I would hope it
> would increase it)
>
> Personally I would like to see our chair use a sublist
> and set up a real WG on this issue, all members welcome
> and an extra 5 posts a day on that sublist, {or no limit}
> for both transfers and deletions.
>
> Earlier today Mr. Gomes stated clearly it was not
> a done deal.
>
> Isn't a deletion really an automated transfer.
>
> I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric

-- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html