<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names
In the US Jury parlance a Judge tells the Jury before rushing off to
deliberations to mind their tongue as
it does poorly to state a position emphatically that may later be hard
to retract from.
Your points are well spoken. Can we work them into a compromise? Are
we working toward declarations of
War or of Consensus?
Let it be known as a dotcommoner advocate, they are a fine group of lazy
dogs. Should we or should we not
baby-sit for them.
I say this as those that actually use names do not seem to have this
major problem. Those who own on
speculation have a harder time. Although those I work with are already
paying, in one form or another to
have there prized names protected.
May we get this clear that we are talking of those that have lost names
due to failure to renew?
You do not pay your phone bill you lose your phone line and have some
time to pay your bill and retain
your number.
Somebody slap me hard because I cannot understand this concern.
OTOH, The names resolving or being gathered for further secondary
market warehousing is sick and
disgusting. When a name becomes available it should be open to the
public - end of story.
Any suggestion that allows a registrar or registry to snap up names as
they expire is ill and also
disgusting.
Eric
Don Brown wrote:
> Good idea, but it does not solve the problem quoted below - the
> Registrant who didn't get notified. Further, NACHA requires
> notification to the consumer before money is taken from their bank
> account.
>
> The period of time that the domain name does not resolve is intended
> as a last ditch effort to make sure the Registrant no longer wants the
> name. The assumption is that the Registrant will notice that his web
> site and/or e-mail is not working. I suspect the Registrant's first
> call will be to the firm which is hosting his web site or e-mail.
> Consequently, an additional idea is notification to the Tech contract
> (assuming it really is the systems admin of the company hosting the
> web site or e-mail) that the name has expired. This may help, but it
> also will not solve the problem.
>
> Personally, I don't think there is a total resolution for this
> problem, but there may be ways to improve the situation.
>
> Sunday, February 17, 2002, 9:34:42 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> wrote:
>
> EP> Hello everybody,
>
> EP> Providing comment to an already 3 days old text ...
>
> EP> Quote from:
> EP> http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
>
> EP> "Probably the most common type of unintentional deletion
> EP> is caused by registrant mistake. Registrants sometimes
> EP> inadvertently fail to renew registrations due to a clerical
> EP> mistake or failure to receive a renewal notice (usually as
> EP> a result of failing to keep registration contact information
> EP> up-to-date.) If a registrant moves or changes Internet
> EP> service providers, the registrant might not receive a notice
> EP> from its registrar informing it that a renewal payment is due.
> EP> Also, some registrants may accidentally overlook a renewal
> EP> notice or mistake it for a solicitation or spam. Section
> EP> 3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement requires
> EP> registrars to cancel the registration of any domain name
> EP> for which the registrant fails to pay a renewal fee at the
> EP> conclusion of a fixed registration period."
>
> EP> Quote from:
> EP> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.7.5
>
> EP> "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to
> EP> Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the
> EP> conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on
> EP> behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee
> EP> within the time specified in a second notice or reminder
> EP> shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result
> EP> in cancellation of the registration. In the event that
> EP> ICANN adopts a specification or policy concerning procedures
> EP> for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall
> EP> abide by that specification or policy."
>
> EP> We could probably learn from other that domain names services.
>
> EP> The public service subscriptions are much longer history that
> EP> Internet domain names under ICANN rules. They certainly vary
> EP> from country to country, but the spectra of solutions for them
> EP> could bring us some ideas for Internet domain names.
>
> EP> In France we have a simple and clever payment feature for all
> EP> kind of public services (water supply, electricity supply,
> EP> telephone supply, Internet access supply, etc.), whether they
> EP> are provided by public or private companies. When you subscribe
> EP> to such services, you usually want them to be renewed without
> EP> getting bothered periodically. The default situation is that
> EP> you will renew unless stated otherwise (and not that you will
> EP> not renew unless explicitly re-subscribed). And you back it up
> EP> by allowing the public service company to charge your bank account.
> EP> The advantage of being granted the payment is big enough to
> EP> make the public service companies taking care about their
> EP> reputation. Which is tourn makes consumer confident.
>
> EP> 1. The subscriber sign a contract with a supplier, and allow
> EP> the supplier to charge its bank account periodically.
> EP> The supplier is sending few weeks in advance a printed
> EP> invoice indicating when the bank account is going to be
> EP> charged next time and the amount of money.
>
> EP> 2. The subscriber may change his mind any time, with a short
> EP> notice, and cancel his subscription. But because the default
> EP> is well adapted to the most common situation, the subscriber
> EP> may also spent his summer vacation in Greece without
> EP> bothering about electricity bills, and will not get into
> EP> dark once at home.
>
> EP> I tend to believe that ICANN rules for the service on domain
> EP> names should be oriented towards stable customers.
> EP> As a practical action it can be that a "long term option"
> EP> based on a kind of automatic periodical payment could be added
> EP> to Registrant's choice and allow him to keep his companies
> EP> names for business or communication for unlimited duration.
>
> EP> Adding any number of days for grace period does not change a iota
> EP> a logic in deletion problem IMHO.
>
> EP> I think that the current ICANN text "ra-agreement-17may01.htm",
> EP> is too strongly intended for competition between Registrars
> EP> and does forget the basic need of Registrant for long term
> EP> stability and visibility on the Internet.
> EP> Simultaneously I wonder how the French example could help
> EP> into gTLD global planet situation.
> EP> No doubt that a Registrar incorporated in France may already
> EP> provide an automatic bank payment to its Registrants, therefore
> EP> grant de facto a "long term option" to its stable customers.
> EP> There is certainly some marketing efforts to be made.
>
> EP> Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
> EP> --
> EP> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> EP> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> EP> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> EP> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|