RE: [nc-deletes] two additional issues

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

I agree with item (1), but my opinion is that item (2) is not part of what
we have been asked to do. It comes too close to trying to fiddle with
registrars business models. After all, this is still supposed to be a
competitive market.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 10:16 AM
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-deletes] two additional issues


(1) While looking for a citation for the number of expired but non-deleted
names, it occurred to me that our draft report does not explicitly account
for clearing out any backlog of such names. On a going forward basis, we
recommend that all expired domains be deleted within a time certain, but
what about names that expired in the past? Perhaps we should add a provision
that states that all such names should be deleted within 180 days of the
policy taking effect. (The longer window would avoid a situation in which
hundreds of thousands of names are deleted all at once.)

(2) I'm also aware of another situation that we may not have acccounted for.
During its landrush, I believe that Afilias required initial .info
registrations to last two years. Some registrars offered a one-year
registration to users, however, and ate the second year. My understanding is
that the name should be deleted when the registrar's contract with the
registrant expires, even if addditional years exist between the registrar
and the registry. Have we made that clear enough in the draft
recommendation?

    Bret