DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Uniform Domain Deletion Policy needed - at the REGISTRAR level.

At 02:29 AM 2/22/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Friday, Friday, February 22, 2002, 2:17:18 AM, Harold Whiting wrote:
>> 2. Domains that remain unpaid 40 days post expiry date shall be returned to
>> the registry to be made available for re-registration.  Registry shall
>> queue all names marked for deletion using the standard "5 day hold" process
>> used now.  No unpaid names shall remain in the registrar's control after 45
>> days, unpaid names must be deleted. Period. Registry fees charged to
>> Registrar's account will be refunded on all names returned to registry by
>> day 45 (just like now, except the registrar will now HAVE to hold the name
>> at least 40 days).
>This is a problem, Harold.
>In effect you are mandating that a registrar tie up potentially
>hundreds of thousands of dollars of its capital in past due domain
>registration fees.  While this is not an issue for larger registrars,
>or registrars owned by the Registry, or Registrars owned by larger
>corporations, the smaller registries are the ones most likely to be
>hurt by this, and potentially forced out of the business, or prevented
>from getting into the business in the first place.
>The ICANN recommendation eliminates that problem, and for that reason,
>I think a strong argument can be made that it is the more fair option.


  This is the way the "grace period" works already.  The Registrar does not
actually "pay" the fee, it is added as a debit to that registrar's account.
 Some simple accounting adjustments could possibly be included to ensure
that this is not a hardship, in any case.

The ICANN recommendation only shifts the issue to the registry, at an
unspecified cost I might add.  Recovering the name from the registry would
require much more in resourses/time/money than recovering that same name
directly from the registrar.  Now with the added talk of somehow being able
to "recover it through any registrar, not just the original registrar"  I
see far more potential problems and potential for fraud than in the plan I
sketched out.

Whatever fine tuning this plan would require, I strongly believe that it
would accomplish the objectives for all involved in a far more effective
and economical manner than the ICANN proposal.

Harold Whiting
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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>