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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, at 06:19 [=GMT+0100], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 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,

With many registrars there is no other way to pay, neither when
registrating nor when renewing a domain.

> and even for those
> who do, credit card information is also subject to change.

That is why I mentioned the extra services: "snail mail or telephone
notificiation".

By the way, I would hope that everyone will be equally worried that domain
name owners cannot be contacted within the review of the UDRP.

> >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.

Those who want to change something have to show that it makes sense. You
cannot implement something new, saying that if it isn't necessary it won't
hurt either...

> 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.

There is already a grace period. I see no problem in making that uniform
for all registrars.

> 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! :)

Fine with me in principle, but without a fee on the _registry_ level. But
could we then tackle at the same time the problem of expired domains that
are not deleted, not even after a year?  Not only speculators are looking
at those names. Also people, companies, organizations that want to use
them for web, mail etc. Speculators are not the only people hoarding
domains. See e.g. number9.org.

The whole deletion process is somewhat of a mess. Part solutions to
problems, like this proposal and VeriSign's waiting list, will only make
it worse. I think it is good that ICANN (and not VeriSign) tackles the
whole problem.

--
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