RE: [nc-deletes] two additional issues

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Agreed.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@register.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 10:06 AM
To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: john@johnberryhill.com; jane.mutimear@twobirds.com;
fausett@lextext.com; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] two additional issues


Tim:

I think you're right in terms of approach--we will have a difficult 
task ahead of us if we try to track down every registrar's particular 
practices and make specific recommendations about that practice within 
our report.

However, I think that it is important that we do take a look at 
existing practices so that we can fully think about the type of 
recommendations that we should make.  For example, if there is a 
problem with registrars not deleting names when they have been 
explicitly instructed to do so, it may be important to be sure that the 
general language of our recommendations resolves this particular 
problem.

In trying to edit the current draft report, I'm trying to incorporate 
something like the language you proposed for expiration over the 
weekend.  However, I'm not sure that it addresses all of the problem 
areas identified below.

It may be that there is a general issue of warehousing that is not 
directly germane to the work of this task force.  I'll be the very last 
one to propose that we unilaterally expand the work of the task force, 
but if we notice that some of the problem areas that we're dealing with 
intersect with (or are tangential to) another problem space, it's 
probably worth noting this in the report so that the Names Council is 
aware that there is another problem are and make a determination about 
how to deal with it.

Jordyn

On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 05:57  AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 1. Not releasing expired domains names.
>
> 2. Registering domain names for longer periods than the registrant
> requested or agreed to.
>
> 3. Not releasing domain names that the registrant has explicitly 
> requested
> be canceled.
>
> 4. Registrars attempting to re-coup loss as a result of fraud. 
> Although I
> personally don't consider this questionable, I do understand that there
> needs to be a limit on how long a domain name is held for this purpose.
>