RE: [nc-deletes] NSI's Comment on Deletions
I'm just telling you all what Brian told me. I am not defending it,
agreeing with it, arguing with it, or trying to explain it beyond that.
The part that Marcia is concerned about is the cost to get a domain name
out of the RGP. She was pretty clear about that.
Monday's are a bad day, but I could make it work.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Jordyn Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:27 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] NSI's Comment on Deletions
Tim Ruiz wrote:
> I spoke with Brian yesterday before he submitted the comments.
> I understood him to be concerned that enforcing the deletion of the
> or a registry auto-delete, would be the greater of two evils.
> By not requiring deletion, there is the potential that registrars may
> or warehouse domains. But there are already provisions in the RAA to
> that, if they are just enforced.
> By requiring the deletion, there is the potential that registrants
> their domains unintentionally, or at least be required to pay the high
> redemption fees to get it back.
This wasn't clear to me from the comments. In fact, it's completely
unclear to me exactly which portion of the "uniform deletion practice"
he is referring to. It seems that he is objecting to the entire concept
of requiring that names be deleted without a renewal, which is
unsurprising considering that NSI has historically had one of the
largest stockpiles of unrenewed yet undeleted names.
> This also seems to be part of what Marcia Wells is getting to in her
Is it? It seems to me a lot of her arguments indicate that names should
get deleted *faster*.
> BTW, when do we meet again?
Now that the comment period is closed, we should do so soon.
Unfortunately, I already have calls scheduled at our usual time
throughout the rest of the week. How about Monday?