RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Paul - not sure that we're talking about the same thing here. The idea
floated on the call was to create a cooling off period after the
proposed Redemption Grace Period...more comments below...

> Ross, I don't think I agree, for practical reasons.
> 1) How would the registrant "get it back"?  how do we 
> validate that the guy who says he was the registrant was 
> actually the registrant?

Covered by the RGP proposal
(http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm).

> 2) for that matter, who is legally, the registrant, or the 
> registrar-of-record during the period after the registrar 
> issues the delete?

Covered by the RGP proposal.

> 3) Speculators will "delete" their names, see if anyone calls 
> to bid on it, then get it back (method to be determined) in 
> either case. Speculators may be constantly deleting and 
> getting names back.

This is also covered by the RGP proposal. Further, there wasn't any
recovery available to the registrant post-RGP during the cooling off
period. Once in the cooling off period, the name would be eentually
deleted, regardless of any claims or potential claims to it.

> 4) Lottery, .biz, fiasco. 

Not contemplated by this proposition. I believe it was Jamie Love that
had proposed using auctions to disperse the names post-delete. The
cooling tank proposal only considered FCFS.


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

--
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