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

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

Registrars should be allowed to try and re-coup their loss. If we address
this at all it should simply be that the timeframe they have to do that is
only whatever time is left on the original registration of the domain. If
they are not able to re-coup their loss by that time, the name must be
allowed to expire, or be deleted.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:31 AM
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Fwd: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Draft report


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?


--