RE: [nc-deletes] two additional issues

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

Again, this can be dealt with through other policy. I think we are picking
nits over something that isn't even an issue any longer since all of the
gTLDs now support 1-year registrations. I am sure if we look, no two
registrars have the same agreement with their customers on this issue. And
to try and tell them now that they cannot honor the terms of their
agreement, which were perfectly fine at the time, won't fly.

Let's stick to what we've been asked to do.

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 11:25 AM
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] two additional issues


Jordyn A.Buchanan wrote:
> (2) I'd like to get a little registrar perspective here.  In some
> cases, I think they should have the option of continuing to provide the
> service for free to the registrant.

It ought to depend on what the contract says. If a registrar has
provided two years for the price of one, then that's not really covered
by what I suggested because there is still a contract in place between
the registrar and the registrant.

What I was trying to get at is the situation in which a registrar has
contracted with a registrant for a one-year term but purchased two years
(or more) from the registry. When that one-year contract expires, there
is no longer a registrant for the domain name. Why shouldn't that name
be deleted? And if it's not deleted, who is the registrant? Who is it
exactly who is bound by the UDRP, the whois accuracy requirements, etc.?

         Bret