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

[Harold Whiting <Harold@PeterWhiting.com>]

At 12:01 AM 2/15/2002 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>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

There IS a "level of vigilance" required of the registrant, that is that
he/she pay the registration fees in a timely manner!

Like it or not, it is not up to us to determine what constitutes
"acceptable use" of a name.  Does pointing it to a search page constitute
use? Does redirecting to an affiliate program constitute use?  Does
building a controversial website, or any website for that matter,
constitute fair use?  Does registering your child's name for future use
constitute acceptable use?  Does registering a name and pointing it towards
adult material that some would find objectionable acceptable use?  Does
registering a name sounding like a US State Lottery and using that name to
sell tickets to said Lottery constitute fair use?  Does registering a name
for email use only constitute acceptable use?  Does simply registering a
name in hopes of profiting from possible resale later on constitute
acceptable use? 

I am free to decide what is acceptable to me, but not to force my values on
the rest of the world - and that is what I would have to be doing to
promote any kind of "use it or lose it" plan.  In case you are curious, I
personally would not do several of the examples aforementioned but accept
the fact that others do and I believe it is within thier rights to do so.

While we all may have our personal preferences and may find a few of the
above examples objectionable, in my opinion they all are reasonable "uses"
of domains.  Yes, even the "dirty speculators" are using the names.  You
would be surprised to see how many of those "speculators" actually are
"using" the names; be it for driving traffic to affiliate programs, driving
traffic to one of thier own sites, actually building an individual site
(dare we venture to judge which sites are of "acceptable content and
message" too?).  

This is not the road we want to go down, IMO.
The point is this: 

You cannot force content to the internet.  If it is going to be published,
it WILL get published.  "I can't publish my wonderful content because my
'perfect' name is gone" - nonsense, if somebody wants to build it they can
and they will. 

You may not dictate what is acceptable to the world by what is only
acceptable to you.

The market is slaughtering those that registered every name under the sun
thinking that they would all sell for millions, this is where a large
percentage of the deletions actually come from!

But all of this is a sidetrack from the primary issue at hand.  A proposal
has been made, by ICANN even!  I strongly suggest that the focus be on that
rather than the utopian ideals that this particular dialog is skirting.

--HJW--


>
>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

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