<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
- To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
- Subject: Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:43:54 +0100
- Cc: abel@able-towers.com, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>, Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>, nc-whois@dnso.org
- In-Reply-To: <0F25F91B59355E42846E57527F331EA9464501@lganj0se6.lga.att.com>
- Mail-Followup-To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>,abel@able-towers.com, Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>,Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>, nc-whois@dnso.org
- References: <0F25F91B59355E42846E57527F331EA9464501@lganj0se6.lga.att.com>
- Sender: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
On 2002-11-25 10:36:23 -0500, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> Remember that we also have "redemption grace period" to take into
> account.How about a compromise of a set extension period that the
> registrar can invoke, if the notice has to be sent by paper?
> 45 days seems too long....
> ... there is the cost issue/if an expiration is involved.
How that? I don't see any reason at all why a pending WHOIS
accuracy inquiry should prevent a domain name from regularly
expiring when it's not being renewed.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|