RE: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Bruce,
It was nice seeing you and everyone else this weekend.
I'm just getting to read the list today.
Sorry if this message is not timely.

Below, do you mean 30 days before or after expiration?

If you mean 30 days before, then
I suggest WLS subscriptions be also prohibited for all names that
have expired. 

I also agree that a solution to the deletes problem be deployed
at the same time as WLS (if WLS is deployed).

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:48 AM
> To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
> Subject: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I think we should separate the WLS as a proposed new service, from the
> problems with competition for expired names.
> 
> One way to do this would be to prevent a WLS being placed on 
> a name within
> say 30 days of the expiry date of the domain during the trial 
> period.  Thus
> the WLS would then act as a genuine back order system, not as a higher
> re-registration fee for a deleted domain name.  We can still have the
> various competing approaches to securing deleted names.
> 
> The current WLS proposal would likely create the same 
> behaviour as we are
> seeing already.  ie speculators will wait for signs that a 
> domain name is
> about to be deleted, and then compete to get the WLS on the name.
> 
> I would like to see a proposed solution to the deletes 
> problem (ie excessive
> use of checks/adds in the lead up to a domain name being 
> deleted), at the
> same time that we decide on the WLS solution/trial.
> 
> I personally like the idea of the back order concept as a new 
> business idea,
> but I disagree that it solves the current problem with the 
> existing core
> registry service.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>