Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods forDeleted Names

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Your proposal here seems sound.

I wonder though, being a hater of warehousing and hoarding, whether there should
not be some level of vigilance or use required of a domain name holder.  This
accomplishes many ends.
I am all for speculation in any market but I have also seen the horrible effects
of letting the condition of a property deteriorate simply because the owner is
betting on increase in values do to inflation artificial demand et al.

While a use it or lose it concept is very unpopular I would love to see it
implemented against our large corporate resellers.

I guess I will soon see just how unpopular this idea is.

Eric


Harold Whiting wrote:

> At 11:00 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> >Thursday, Thursday, February 14, 2002, 10:56:46 PM, Harold Whiting wrote:
> >
> >> At 10:13 PM 2/14/2002 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I don't have a real problem with this, actually.  My only comment is
> >>>that it should be stated that the registrar can ONLY redeem the
> >>>registration for the original registrant, and not for any other
> >>>customer or prospective customer of the registrar.  I know this may be
> >>>implied, but it should be specific in this restriction.
> >
> >> Actually, I have quite a few concerns about this.
> >> Isn't this what the 45 day "Grace Period" after the renewal date is for?
> >
> >That is optional per registrar.  There are registrars who delete names
> >much sooner after expiration.
>
> My suggestion is that THIS is where there should be uniformity.  If all
> registrars are mandated to follow the same procedure during the 45 day
> window and delete names uniformly, we solve not only the "mistakes" but
> also the hoarding issue.  This makes far more sense than to add yet another
> layer of opportunity to manipulate the system by numerous parties
> >
> >> Don't most registrars pull the name from resolving shortly after the
> >> expiration date anyway if the renewal fees are unpaid?
> >
> >No, not all of them do.
>
> See above.  I suggest the 30 day hold period be mandated during the 45 day
> window.  This plan also makes it far easier for the Registrar to "recover"
> the name for thier registrant since it is still under thier control and
> eliminates any extra burden on the registry to administrate this and also
> any need to "charge an extra fee" to the registrar for "recovering" the name.
> >
> >> What this effectively does is give VGRS COMPLETE control over deletions
> >> from ALL registrars.
> >
> >No more so than now, really, except instead of 5 days, they wait 45.
> >
> >This is nothing but a change from 5 to 45.
>
> you mean 35, right?
>
> >
> >--
> >Best regards,
> >William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> >--
>
> --HJW--
> Harold Whiting
> --
> 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 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