RE: [nc-deletes] two additional issues

[Jane Mutimear <jane.mutimear@twobirds.com>]

Title: RE: [nc-deletes] two additional issues

In relation to (2) there is a difference between buying one year and getting another year free and buying one year and the registrar paying for another year unbeknownst to the registrant.  The former I have no problem with.  The latter is more problematic and I agree with Jordyn that this should be covered.

Jane

(PS my UDRP points and impact statement are going to be late - sorry.  I will try to get them both to you on Monday).

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@register.com]
Sent: 24 January 2003 16:49
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] two additional issues

(1) I'm also comfortable making the policy retroactive after 180 days.
(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.  If that's never going to happen,
and the only chance is that the registrar will move the domain to an
"unpaid names department", then I think we could modify the requirement
to delete domains to also include this case.

Jordyn

On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 11:16  AM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> (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
>

________________________________________________________________________
BIRD & BIRD 
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. 
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged.  
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail. 
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom. 
A full list of partners is available on request. 
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com 

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________