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

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

I don't think we should refer to it directly at all. It is the surrounding
policies that we should be concerned with, not specific aspects of various
business models.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:48 AM
To: Adam Peake
Cc: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Draft report


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?
>
>
> --
>