[nc-udrp] conference call feedback

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Great conference call on Tuesday, Marilyn. I think you did an excellent
job of getting things on
the table for discussion.
 
I just wanted to be sure two things got nailed down.
 
1) there is no reason we have to live in uncertainty re: the date a
   domain goes dark after an expiry date.  Right now there is no policy.
   If we are architecting how we think things should work,
   then we should be able to say there is a policy: the plug gets pulled
'x' days
   and I think x should be zero.  As someone pointed out, 
   the main way people who neglect to pay for their domain get their
   act in gear is when the domain goes dark. So instead of having
   variability in the date it should be part of the registrar agreement,
   that you can not leave a domain expired and still in the file.
 
2) For any grace or redemption or other wait period we should keep it
   simple and not try to differentiate between different kinds of names,
   used/unused, infringing/innocent, safe/porn, etc etc.  A name is a
name.
   While it may help a few 'obvious' cases make it back into
circulation, the headaches 
   this might cause far outweigh the minor commercial benefit of having
one or two obvious
   cases get back in the pool early.

ok... make it three things.
 
3) For these various waiting 'periods' lets just find a number or
numbers that work(s)
   for the greatest good and not try to worry about the the bad things
that
   happen to a few examples.  There will be horror stories and freak
   instances no matter what we do.  lets just do the regular 'whats good
   policy?' thing and do something that works for most, is not overly
   onerous to implement, and explicity state that we know its not
perfect
   but the best we think we can do.
 
 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca