RE: [nc-deletes] NSI's Comment on Deletions

[Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>]

Can't do Monday -- flying.  Wednesday's OK.

Thanks,

Adam



>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
>domain,
>>  or a registry auto-delete, would be the greater of two evils.
>
>>  By not requiring deletion, there is the potential that registrars may
>hoard
>>  or warehouse domains. But there are already provisions in the RAA to
>prevent
>>  that, if they are just enforced.
>
>>  By requiring the deletion, there is the potential that registrants
>could lose
>>  their domains unintentionally, or at least be required to pay the high
>RGP
>>  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
>comments.
>
>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?
>
>Jordyn


--