Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Draft report

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>]

This has been discussed.

Part of the rationale behind the requirement for deleting names that 
had not been explicitly renewed within 45 days is to prevent a subset 
of this behavior.  Dealing with the problem more generally is not 
within our original charter.

That does not mean that we can't go back to the Names Council and 
request that the task force be re-chartered if there's significant 
interest in this issue.  Early on, requesting a modification of the 
charter for our current work was probably a practical option; I think 
at this point, I'd advocate that we add this to the "list of issues 
that might be dealt with in the future" along with the re-allocation 
issue.

Jordyn


On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 04:30  AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> Danny Younger asked a question I hope someone can answer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>> Delivered-To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp
>> From: DannyYounger@cs.com
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:46:08 EST
>> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Draft report
>> To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp, discuss@icann-ncc.org
>>
>> Adam,
>>
>> In addition to the four issues cited in the draft report, I am aware 
>> of
>> another issue:
>>
>> When a credit card chargeback has occured, the registrar will often 
>> take the
>> domain and transfer it to the registrar's internal "unpaid names 
>> department"
>> (the rationale is that the registrar has lost the opportunity to 
>> receive a
>> credit from the registry and has also incurred the added expense of a
>> chargeback fee).  In such circumstances the name is not released to 
>> the
>> general pool of available names and effectively becomes a proprietary 
>> holding
>> of the registrar.  
>>
>> Has there been any discussion of this topic within the committee?
>
>
> -- 
>