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

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Marc,

At 15.02.2002 21:58, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Those registrars that I have checked (in alphabetical order: Dotster,
>Enom, OpenSRS, Register.com) have an Auto Renew option. This fully takes
>care of the problem discussed in this ICANN document. There is no need for
>anything else. Registrars can profile themselves by offering the auto
>renew service, or even other services that avoid losing a domain (e.g.
>snail mail or telephone notification).

I'm not so sure. E.g. Register.com's service called
SafeRenew is simply an attempt to charge the credit card
the renewal fee. Not everyone pays or even wants to
pay the domain fees by credit card, and even for those
who do, credit card information is also subject to change.

>The ICANN document states:
>
>"Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that a significant portion of the
>demand for registration of deleted domains involves domains that the
>former registrant did not intend to have deleted. If the only names
>that became available to the market for re-registering expired names
>were ones that were truly no longer wanted by the original
>registrants, the demand for expired names would be less intense, and
>perhaps significantly so."
>
>This is too easy. Facts and figures are needed. Why change things, and
>give VeriSign a new profitable monopoly, if all we have is "anecdotal
>evidence" and speculation based upon that? Come on.

First of all, I don't think that a new profitable 
monopoly has to be created to implement this. If anything,
registry and registrar may be allowed to charge a very 
small fee for handling the late renewal. If
0.50-2.00 US$ are an educated guess for the core costs 
of a domain name at the registry level, 
(http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-February/001437.html)
the late renewal fee should definitely be less.
If -- as you seem to imply -- there was no 
big problem (i.e. if all expired domains are due to 
lack of interest of their current holders), the fee 
would simply never be charged.

I agree that we need more information from ICANN about 
the complaints. But even if only a small portion of
domains up for deletion are domains which their owners
really want to keep, such a grace period is a good
thing. It might be even better (see fnord's article
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=548&mode=thread&order=0)
to have the web site resolve to a notice "Attention, 
this domain name is about to be deleted due to 
non-payment of renewal fees."

It seems to me that the only ones negatively affected
are companies and individuals trying to make a business
out of the current situation where at least /some/
domains are deleted without the owner realizing it.
This may not apply to those users who use some kind of
Auto Renew and who keep their contact data current
and accurate. But then again, to err is human --
which is why I appreciate adding a bit of forgiveness 
to the domain deletion process! :)

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
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