[ga] Redemption Grace Period
Title: Help ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Young <Bruce@barelyadequate.info> To: At-Large Discussion List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 5:10 AM Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Issues > Alexander Svensson wrote: > > >We *should* have an opinion on the Redemption Grace Period and those > >who don't even know what that is should get up to speed (again, I'm > >not referring to Joop -- I'm sure he knows). > > I fully support the Redemption Grace Period concept. It's one of the few > recent decisions to come out of ICANN recently that I *do* support! :) But > I don't feel it goes far enough. I think a registrar should be required to > notify via e-mail the domain holder of record say 30 days before its due to > expire. Yes - and I would go further still Bruce... I don't think it's acceptable that when a name expires, Verisign should just snap it up, or SnapNames should just snap it up, or a few registrars running scripts should just snap it up. The names being returned to the public should be clearly available to the whole public. Therefore, once a name has expired (eg after the 30 days) it should enter a list of such expired names so that the whole Internet public can see that it is available again. Then, once every 8 weeks or so, people should be allowed to apply for these names, with everyone having a similar chance of getting them. In other words, openness, no bias in favour of insiders or big business: the DNS being distributed, instead, in the interests of the millions of ordinary users who do not run scripts etc but have as much right to these released names as anyone else. That's my view on the Redemption Grace period. It just doesn't go far enough. But I wholeheartedly agree that the person who is about to lose the name should ALWAYS be e-mailed about that well in advance. I'm not sure that that e-mail shouldn't come from the Registry itself, to avoid the possibility of an unscrupulous registrar snapping up the name. Richard Henderson |