RE: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report
Still sounds messy to me. And I'm not convinced it will be as isolated
as you suggest. This does not seem to be any less complicated, at least
from the registrar's perspective, than what the TF had originally
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 5:13 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Subject: RE: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report
> Another issue would be how long of a period after the Complainant
> it do we allow the registrant to still recover it Up to day 75 after
> the original expiry? The Registrars will need to track that.
The name will already be recovered from a registry point of view (ie it
will be renewed). If the registrant met the requirements to recover
the name during the same 30 day period, you could restore the name to
its previous status. If outside of the 30 day period, the registrant
would not have the right to restore the name to its previous status.
> And if the Complainant loses and the domain is deleted again, it will
enter another RGP > cycle. Who, if anyone, will be able to recover the
name at that point?
If within the 30 day period after the original deletion - the registrant
would be able to recover the name. If outside the original 30 day
period, no-one would be able to recover the name - it would eventualy be
deleted from the registry.
Given the low instances of the scenario - I think it is reasonable to
let registrars manage the business process, as long as they do so
This whole area is really an extenuating circumstance, and I don't think
it merits being too presciptive on all the various combinations - other
than allowing for the complainant to take the name out of circulation
(ie prevent a new third party from registering the name) while a UDRP
dispute is being resolved. This in no way has precedence over the
registrant's existing rights with respect to renewal or redemption grace