Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace PeriodsforDeleted Names

[Harold Whiting <Harold@PeterWhiting.com>]

At 01:35 AM 2/15/2002 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

yet more comments further down...

>Well said - comments below.
>
><snip>
>
>> 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--
>
>Lets go back to WXWs' point.
>
>All commercial resellers and/or accredited ICANN registrars and registries 
>must use
>it or give it back.
>
>Give it back means to the public or to the deleted owner. Give it back
means at
>non-speculative prices.
>
>There you go, that ain't no pie in the sky, that there is brass tacks.
>
>The bottom line is warehousing and registrar/registry reselling = real bad
>practice.

I agree

>
>5 - 45 does not bother me at all.  - irrelevant.

I would like to see the 30 day hold occur concurrent with the 45 day grace
period, because this handles both issues of hoarding and "accidents"
together in the most efficient manner. No additional cost, no additional
registry administration, no additional layers. I would like to see 40 days
during that period that a domain does not resolve, this would be ample time
for any semi-conscious registrant to renew the name and provide the fastest
way for him/her to do that because it does not need to be "recovered" back
from the registry.  I found it interesting that ICANN cited the "recovery"
clause in the current contract for names in the 5 day "registry hold"
period we have currently as I have had many clients try to have NSI
"recover" thier own names during this very same period only to be told by
NSI that it was technically impossible to do.  I have doubts that it will
be any less "impossible" for them to do it with a different timeline!

>
>Consensus on stopping these cancerous processes of name hoarding by the 
>folks that control the spaces, that is the key.

Agreed, but adding more layers is not likely to exert more control, only
create more problems ultimately. more layers = more cost = more chances for
manipulation, etc.  Again, this is something we already have the mechanisms
in place for but are not using them efficiently and uniformly.

>
>We await in the next twenty four hours a response from Mr. Gomes on the very 
>issue which is core here.

Actually, this is adjunct to the WLS issue in that it deals with both
hoarding and TIMELY deletes.  I do not expect Chuck to offer up any comment
on either, considering he is supposedly "blind to what the Registrar side
of the Chinese Wall" is going to do.

<snip>

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