Re: [registrars] auto deact -vs- auto renew

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Hi Time and Rick...



--On Friday, February 07, 2003 3:02 AM -0700 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> 
wrote:

> Also, I think that Bruce makes a good point. At the end of the grace
> period the domain name could just as easily be renewed in the absence of
> any explicit delete, as deleted in the absence of an explicit renew. That

How about this... Let each registrar choose what it prefers.  Maintain the 
existing auto-renew for those of us who like that, but let those who prefer 
auto-delete select that as an option.  This is just engineering; I see no 
reason this could not be done.

> correct mistakes. True, it's not without cost, but in most situations in
> life, and business, mistakes have consequences. I believe the RGP was
> introduced to help protect registrants, not to aleviate registrar's
> responsibility to have sound systems and practices.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that we should not be responsible for 
mistakes.  But if we can choose the consequences, let's take the lesser 
ones ;-)

Jim



>
>  -------- Original Message --------
>    Subject: [registrars] auto deact -vs- auto renew
>    From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
>    Date: Thu, February 6, 2003 12:22 pm
>    To: Registrars List <Registrars@dnso.org>
>
>
>    In Shanghai chuck of VGRS made a proposal for changing the auto renew
>    policy. This topic was of interest to the registrars on the call last
>    week about the expiration date displayed in VGRS whois.
>
>    Chucks proposal is as follows:
>
>      o auto renew grace period continues, the name may change, but the
>        period remains.
>
>      o VGRS deactivates the name if not explicitly renewed or transfered
>      by
>        day 10 of the renewal grace period.
>
>      o VGRS deletes the names not explicity renewed or transfered by the
>      end
>        of the renewal grace period.
>
>    Please comment on this proposal and add any recommendations you may
>    have. VGRS might me able to make the changes in their June/July
>    software release. If we can get a paper and respective consensus to
>    VGRS in 30 days it would help the understand if they can make the
>    suggested changes in their summer release schedule.
>
>    best,
>
>    -rick
>
>