[nc-transfer] RE: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Sorry Don,

The quoting started to make it look like I had proposed the auction
model - I just wanted to be painfully clear because, as we know,
auctions/lotteries don't tend to go over that well in domain land ;)



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Brown [mailto:donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:24 PM
> To: owner-ga@dnso.org; Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: James Love; John Berryhill; ga@dnso.org; Transfer TF (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal
> 
> 
> Is this redundant?  My comments were regarding Ross's 
> "cooling tank" model.  Thanks,
> 
> 
> Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 9:39:27 PM, Ross Wm. Rader 
> <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
> RWR> To be clear, Jamie Love re-proposed the auction model. I was 
> RWR> putting forward the new concept of the "cooling tank".
> 
> RWR> Thanks,
> 
> RWR> -rwr
> 
> 
> RWR> ----- Original Message -----
> RWR> From: "Don Brown" <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>
> RWR> To: <owner-ga@dnso.org>; "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> RWR> Cc: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>; "John Berryhill" 
> RWR> <john@johnberryhill.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; "Transfer TF (E-mail)" 
> RWR> <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
> RWR> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:20 PM
> RWR> Subject: Re: [ga] [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: WLS proposal
> 
> 
> >> I don't see anything wrong with the concept explained by 
> Ross, below.
> >>
> >> It gives the original registrant much more time to realize 
> they have 
> >> an expired domain name and it removes the conflict of interest 
> >> potential for the Registrar and Registry, during a much short time 
> >> period.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, NetSol/VeriSign shouldn't have a problem with this 
> >> extended period, either, since they have, in fact, been hoarding 
> >> expired names for a considerably longer period of time. 
> Although, my 
> >> bet is that they will use it as an excuse to ask for a price 
> >> increase. I could be psychic - time will tell.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 4:37:08 AM, Ross Wm. Rader 
> <ross@tucows.com>
> RWR> wrote:
> >> >> Specifically, I proposed a 30 day period during which 
> people could 
> >> >> register for a lottery for the expired domain, and that during
> RWR> this
> >> RWR> 30
> >> >> day period, at any time, the original domain holder 
> could get it 
> >> >> back. Anyone who wanted the expired domain could contact the 
> >> >> original domain
> >> RWR> name
> >> >> holder, and suggest they get the domain back and sell 
> it to them.  
> >> >> So
> RWR> if
> >> RWR> any
> >> >> auction develops, it will be with the original domain 
> holder, not the
> >> >> registrar.   The original domain name holder benefits 
> the most from
> RWR> this
> >> >> system.  They are more likely to catch mistakes, or 
> could sell the
> RWR> domain
> >> RWR> to
> >> >> an interested party.
> >>
> >> RWR> We talked about something similar on the last call.
> >>
> >> RWR> Realizing that a lot of the speculative value of a 
> domain lies 
> >> RWR> with
> RWR> the
> >> RWR> goodwill that accrues to it because of the initial 
> registrant, 
> >> RWR> it was proposed that all domain names slated for deletion are 
> >> RWR> put into a
> RWR> cooling
> >> RWR> tank for x days beyond the 30 days described in the 
> Redemption 
> >> RWR> Grace
> RWR> Period
> >> RWR> proposal.
> >>
> >> RWR> This would create a situation whereby registrants would be 
> >> RWR> guaranteed
> RWR> a
> >> RWR> right of re-registration "if they forgot to renew" 
> and eliminate 
> >> RWR> or
> RWR> diminish
> >> RWR> trainspotting by ensuring a prolonged 404-like 
> condition over a
> RWR> reasonably
> >> RWR> extended period of time before the name was deleted. Once 
> >> RWR> cooled, the
> RWR> domain
> >> RWR> could be deleted and re-registered by anyone on a first-come, 
> >> RWR> first
> RWR> served
> >> RWR> basis (and get a name relatively free of baggage).
> >>
> >> RWR> In my mind, this proposal has much to commend it in its 
> >> RWR> simplicity
> RWR> and
> >> RWR> perceived effectiveness.
> >>
> >> RWR> -rwr
> >>
> >>
> >> RWR> --
> >> RWR> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list. Send 
> >> RWR> mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe 
> ("unsubscribe ga" in 
> >> RWR> the body of the message). Archives at 
> >> RWR> http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> >> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> >> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: 
> (972) 788-5049
> >> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> >> ----
> >>
> 
> RWR> --
> RWR> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list. 
> Send mail 
> RWR> to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" 
> in the body 
> RWR> of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
>