DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

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

As Harold said, this is "mostly" an accounting matter only, registrars
are not immediately paying for the domains, however, to save everybody
some money including the registry the following can be added as a
moderate change to current procedures:

"Renewal fees to the registry will be charged to the registrar upon the
45th day of expiry, if such a domain is not returned to the registry.
The fees will then be non-returnable and the domain will be deemed to be
renewed by the original registrant."

This solves the registry the trouble of booking the domain twice (in and
out) solves the registrars problem of money on hold (credit-rating)
And solved the "hoarding" problem even further by assuming when not
returned the original owner renewed.
This in turn eliminates a full set of traffic on a domain renewal with
the registry and hence saves more money and "occupancy" of lines.

Often the simplest solutions are the best. 
In my opinion adding this to Harold's plan makes the ICANN proposal seem
a good starting point where with the current proposals here we might
actually have something that would work

abel wisman

On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 10:29, William X Walsh 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.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
> --
> "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
> the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
> interprets the truth."
> -- Jean Giradoux
> --
> 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

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 >>>