RE: [nc-deletes] Revisions to 3.1.4 and next call

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

I disagree. It has nothing to do with the issues this task force was asked
to address. I appreciate that some are rightly concerned with this
practice. However, I think that the comments we have received actually stem
from the Redemption fee issue, not from renewal pricing.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Revisions to 3.1.4 and next call
   From: "Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com>
   Date: Mon, March 17, 2003 1:01 pm
   To: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@confusion.net>, <nc-deletes@dnso.org>

   Tim:

   The language about price isn't intended to dictate any particular
   price, or even any particular practice.  However, it's intended to
   avoid the situation where a registrar might raise the price of a
   renewal after the domain has expired (and can consequently no longer
   be transferred to another registrar--rightly so).  If the registrant
   is warned that this will be the case when they register the domain, I
   think it's just a registrar business practice that none of us has any
   business regulating; on the other hand there's some public interest in
   avoiding a situation in which the registrar imposes a "late renewal
   penalty" without warning and after they have exclusive control of a
   domain name.  I think the current language is a good compromise
   between regulating no increase (as some of the public commentors
   sought) and a completely hands-off approach on this issue.

   Jordyn



   > From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
   > Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003  12:06:39  PM America/New_York
   > To: "'Jordyn Buchanan'" <jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com>,
   > <nc-deletes@dnso.org>
   > Cc: <evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com>
   > Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Revisions to 3.1.4 and next call
   >
   > I don't believe I can support this proposed change. What issue is it
   > trying to address? I would try to support this revision:
   >
   > "3.1.4 Registrars must provide a summary of their deletion policy,
   > as well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may
   > have, at the time of registration.  This policy may include the
   > expected time at which a non-renewed domain name would be deleted
   > relative to the domain's expiration date."
   >
   > I will in no way support any recommendation that requires registrars
   > to publish renewal pricing, or any other pricing, in some particular
   > manner. That is completely beyond the scope of this task force and
   > has nothing to do with deletes.
   >
   > Tuesday 900 EST works for me, as long as I get the call details.
   >
   > Tim
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]
   > On Behalf Of Jordyn Buchanan
   > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:30 PM
   > To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
   > Cc: evelyn.Remaley@wcom.com
   > Subject: [nc-deletes] Revisions to 3.1.4 and next call
   >
   > Hello all:
   >
   > First, here's some proposed revised text fo our recommendation
   > 3.1.4:
   >
   > "3.1.4 Registrars must provide a summary of their deletion policy,
   > as well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may
   > have, at the time of registration.  This policy should include the
   > expected time at which a non-renewed domain name would be deleted
   > relative to the domain's expiration date, or a date range not to
   > exceed ten days in length.  Additionally, the policy should indicate
   > any change to the price of a renewal that may occur after the
   > domain's expiration date  but
   > prior to its deletion."
   >
   > Second, it turns out I'll be travelling Monday morning, so can
   > people  do
   > a call on Tuesday (usual time -- 1400 GMT, 900 EST)?  Hopefully Bret
   > will have forwarded the proposed responses to the various public
   > comments by then and we'll be able to finalize revisions to the
   > text.
   >
   > Thanks,
   >
   > Jordyn