Re: [ga] Re: [centr-ga] Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force
- To: "Eric Dierker" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [centr-ga] Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force
- From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:55:53 -0400
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
From: "Eric Dierker" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> What you have written here suggests that the registrar owns a domain name
> something seperate from an IP address. I find this illusive if not down
> right wrong.
I have no idea how you get that out of what I wrote.
The point here is that a domain name is whatever the registration contract
defines it to be. And presently, contracts for .com domain names define them
as having a fixed term of registration.
It's very simple. If I agree to feed your dog every day for a term of one
year beginning on May 1, 2003, then on May 2, 2004, I will not show up to
feed your dog. How hard is that to understand?
Now, let's say in January 2004, someone came along claiming that I was
supposed to be feeding his dog instead of yours. The two of you can fight
all you want, but I still can guaran-dang-tee you that, come May 2, 2004, I
am not going to be feeding ANYBODY'S dog unless I get paid for another year's
supply of dog food. It is that simple.
And this exercise in defining deletion policy is, in part, an exercise in
defining what a domain name *is* for those registries subject to the policy.
The objection to having a uniform deletion policy is simply "because some
people want domain names to do something different, then it will lead to
problems if domain names don't do what those people want them to do." That
kind of objection is circular.
If it is established as an inherent property of a domain name registration
that "it will expire if the renewal is not paid", then the source of problems
will be picking out when an 'exception' is desired and when an 'exception' is
There are definite and well-known perceived 'abuses' that have arisen from
the curious deletion policies of certain registrars. If you want to continue
to delete names on a loosy-goosy "do what feels right in the particular
situation" way, then that's fine, but you don't need a policy to keep doing
that. Now, already in this process, we have seen a registry representative
assert that there was something in the RAA that prevents registrar name
warehousing, but when challenged to point out where, not a peep was heard.
The reason is that the RAA contemplates some future "consensus policy" on
name deletions and registrar warehousing, but no such consensus policy has
ever been adopted.
And, absolutely, there are all kinds of situations where people do not comply
with contracts, or pay fees for services, for all sorts of justifiable and
perfectly sympathetic reasons. But let's get real about this - if a domain
name is important to someone, then they can certainly pay, right now, for up
to TEN YEARS of registration for less than around $200. Good golly, if we
are still futzing around with domain names ten years from now, then just