Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Brett, I think (e) is just a bit unrealistic in 2002.  And trying to implement
it risks making the system over-complicated. Given that what you are proposing
are measures to protect potential registrants, it seems unfair that the only one
who risks getting hurt is the current registrant.

Bret Fausett wrote:

> > I request the community to develop a concise list of requirements for
> > proposals to solve the issues with a registry deleting domains names in
> > batch.
>
> Rick, from the perspective of a registrant, here are some features that
> would be nice:
>
>   (a) a registrant's chance at a name should not increase by paying a fee to
> more than one registrar or submitting more than one application (with a
> single registrar or multiple registrars);
>
>   (b) a registrant should not have to visit a registrar's site multiple
> times in order to obtain a deleting domain name. (This places some
> constraints around an auction model, which, depending on how it were
> implemented, might require a registrant to monitor the auction in order to
> place successive higher bids. It doesn't foreclose an auction model though);
>
>   (c) by looking at the expiration date on the whois record of the desired
> name, a prospective registrant should have some idea of when it will learn
> about whether it has acquired the desired name. In other words, expiration
> date should bear some rational relationship to the time when the name is
> deleted/re-registered;
>
>   (d) if the scheme agreed upon is such that registrars can compete by
> offering differentiated services, then consumers should have some ability to
> fairly evaluate the claims made by registrars about their success rates and
> how the services are different. (I'd suggest that the current system doesn't
> meet this requirement.)
>
>   (e) the current registrant should make his or her decision to renew blind
> to the value placed on that domain name by prospective registrants.
>
>   (f) the previous registrant's choice of registrar shouldn't be a factor in
> determining what subsequent registrants must do to acquire the name. For
> example, the previous registrant's registrar shouldn't enjoy an exclusive
> ability to market the name, for any period of time, after the previous
> registrant has declined to renew.
>
> I hope that is helpful.
>
>    -- Bret
>
> --
> 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

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca


--
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