RE: [registrars] Domain Drops and WLS Proposal?

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

I would also agree.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Paul Stahura
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:45 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Domain Drops and WLS Proposal?


I agree with Bruce on this for a variety of reasons.
If there is no WLS on a name by the time it expires,
then a WLS should be prohibited from being placed on that name,
until it is either renewed (during the 4-day period most likely)
or until it is deleted and re-registered.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:57 PM
To: 'les'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Domain Drops and WLS Proposal?


Or even better.  Exclude names that have not been renewed by the expiry date
from WLS.

Regards,
bruce

> -----Original Message-----
> From: les [mailto:les@mail.addresscreation.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:36 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Domain Drops and WLS Proposal?
>
>
> I have noticed that myself.
>
> Could there be any claims for improper conduct if it is found
> that the
> registry has been hoarding deleted names in an attempt to
> maximize their
> WLS profit?  Or at least some guideline that any pending
> names should be
> dropped before the implementation of the WLS, so as to not
> skew the numbers
> of subscriptions, etc. because of the pumped up large volume
> of initially
> subscribed names.
>
> Leslie VanExel
> Address Creation
>
>
> At 09:26 AM 7/17/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Does anyone find it strange that every time the WLS is brought up for
> >discussion, Domain drops seem to stop? So far this month
> there has been
> >nothing really.
> >
> >Just thought I'd bring this up for comment.
> >
> >Patricio Valdes
> >Parava Networks
>