Re: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland, WXW and all assembly members,

  I am in agreement with both WXW and Roeland here.  WXW is
correct in part in thinking that the the "Normally" accepted, and
BTW contracted process needs to be either enforced, modified
at the contractual level, or completely revamped.  This would also
follow along with Rolands last comment/observation as well.
The current Registrar Accreditation Agreement (Contract) is
not being adequately enforced or overseen which is the ICANN
Staff's responsibility.  In part this is inherent with all forms
of self regulation.  But it can be overcome if diligence is
considered and taken seriously.  Presently it is not.

  This situation highlights the need for coming to a determination
as to a process enhancement that may be needed to address the
problem the WXW has presented here for comment, and rightly so
in this instance, that the Transfer Task Force needs to address,
amongst other related issues regarding Domain Name Transfers
and enforcement.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> I agree with you. Additionally, the registrar, being a re-seller for the
> registry, does NOT own the license to the name. The registrant does. If the
> registrant lets the domain lapse (as I have recently done with two of mine)
> they should revert to the registry's pool for everyone to be able to access.
> This gives an unfair edge to the registrars for expiring names.
>
> But then, I think that the registrar system is seriously flawed anyway. This
> is yet another flaw.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@wxsoft.info]
> |> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 2:06 PM
> |> To: ga@dnso.org
> |> Subject: [ga] Registrar domain deletion policies
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> I'd like to get some feedback here.
> |>
> |> A registrar is currently testing a service where rather than outright
> |> deleting domain names that are expiring without payment, they are
> |> creating a premium service where, for a monthly fee, you can get
> |> access to have these names transferred to you, without any
> |> interaction
> |> or approval from the prior registrant, and in a way that totally
> |> bypasses the normal deletion/drop process.
> |>
> |> What would you feedback be on the creation of such a service.  It in
> |> effect creates a monopoly, where domains registered at a registrar
> |> must be reregistered with that registrar (though they can, after 60
> |> days, be transferred to another registrar).
> |>
> |> I'm very much opposed to this, on the grounds that I think the
> |> registrant has rights which are being trampled by this, including an
> |> assumption that their registrar will follow normally accepted
> |> processes and not actually solicit someone to purchase their domain
> |> name in such a direct fashion and outside the normal process.
> |>
> |> I'd like your feedback though, and I'll forward it on to them, but I
> |> also know they are on this list and reading it as well.
> |>
> |> --
> |> Best regards,
> |> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> |> --
> |>
> |> --
> |> 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@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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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