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
________________________________________________________________________