RE: [registrars] ICANN "Safety Net"

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

I don't believe that they will pass it in Ghana.  I  believe that they
recognize that there are details to be worked out, and that they'll seek
input on these issues.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom D'Alleva [mailto:tdalleva@bulkregister.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:46 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] ICANN "Safety Net"



There has been vitually no discussion here on the ICANN "safety net"
proposal. Will they pass this proposal in Ganna when no one is looking?

In spirit it's an idea with good intentions.

However, as it stands now, there are still a few issues:
1. The general tone is that registrars and registrants are to blame for
inadvertantly deleting names implying that the registries need to do
something to help us out.
2. it allows registries to charge an extra fee for this service but doesn't
consider that a registry is capable of being the cause of the problem.
(There is no mention of registrars charging for this service.)
3. Does it matter how much they charge?
4. It extends the wait period for deleted names to 75 days (45 + 30).  This
just enlarges the pool of names in the hotly contested secondary name
market.  We still don't have a solution for the current "deleted name"
issues.
5. it potentially allows non-paying registrants a way to switch registrars
to keep their names. This is like renting a car with Hertz, not paying them,
and then being allowed to continue your rental of the same car with Avis.
Disputes between registrars and their registrant customers may be better
served by a different type of safety net or more stringent controls on when
a name is permitted to be transfered.