Re: [nc-deletes] Revised Public Comments

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

Thanks Bret. The comments look very good. I do have a couple of suggestions.

I think we should be clearer regarding the redepmtion grace period recovery
fee. It is not a renewal fee. Some registrars may include the renewal fee
in it, but that is not the way the regsitry fee works. The RGP recovery fee
is separate from any subsequent renewal fee. Registrar's are charged
separately for the renewal.

We don't need to explicitly correct the person making the comments, but I
propose the following revisions.

Comment on 1,2,3, first sentence be revised to read:
Comments on the fee to recover domain names from the Redemption Grace
Period are beyond the scope of the task force's work.

Comment on 4, second sentence be revised to read:
Ms. Wells' suggestion that registrars inform registrants of the fee they
intend to charge to recover a domain name from the Redeption Grace Period
is now included in the proposed recommendation.

In regards to Comment on 5, while this is one major reason why registrars
need discretion during the 45 day grace period, there are others.
Registrars obviously do not all operate under the same business model, nor
should they. Some deal quite heavily with speculators, others with
resellers, and still others with corporate/higher profile clients. How they
deal with un-renewed names during the grace period is quite different and
they should have some flexibility there. The grace period is provided by
the registry to the registrar. The registrar should have discretion as to
how they use it to best serve their customers.

OK, off my soap box. I would suggest the following revision to Comment 5,
third sentence:

The registrars, however, made the point that given their various business
models, some flexibility is needed during this grace period. For example,
registries bill the registrars for a renewed domain promptly on its renewal
date and then credit the renewal fee back if the domain name is deleted
within forty-five (45) days.

Thanks,
Tim


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: [nc-deletes] Revised Public Comments
   From: Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>
   Date: Wed, March 19, 2003 12:41 am
   To: <nc-deletes@dnso.org>

   Below is a link to my re-draft of the public comments summary and our
   responses. Jordyn, for your convenience, I've done this in html, with
   links to the relevant source documents, so you should be able to just
   plug it into the existing report. The source is attached.

    http://www.lextext.com/deletescomments.html

   Comments and revisions welcome.

     -- Bret