> I wouldn't call this holding the domain hostage - OpenSRS does not allow
> tranfers past day 0 either (we put the domain on hold). Not to say that
> what NSI is doing is right (it's a rather abrupt change from their older
> policy), but afaik they aren't doing anything illegal or anticompetitive
> (if they were, then we would be as well *ick*)
One of the few times, Charles, but on this occasion I don't agree with your
sentiments - in my opinion allowing a transfer on a 'past due' SHOULD be
compulsory - BUT, it is part of a bigger picture.
For example, I don't know how what YOU have to pay for the domain works. IF
you have to pay for it on exactly the due date and you've paid the $6, then
it is reasonable to expect your $10 from the registrant before you let it
go. If, as I suspect, you too are given some 'grace' time on your upstream
payment - then even though a domain is past due no-one, in reality, owes
anybody anything.
Personally, I would like to see a more clear cut procedure all round.
AS SOON as the domain goes 'past due' it gets 'temporarily' dropped from the
root servers BUT doesn't become 'registerable' (by anyone else) again until
30 days after that point - which gives the previous registrant PLENTY of
time to rectify their mistake and either pay their existing registrar, or
transfer it. If they haven't done either of those within the 30 days, it is
'permanently' dropped and nobody owes anybody anything - so you have no
excuse (ala Netsol) of hanging onto the domain for months, even years in
some cases, after it has expired. Since the domain gets 'temporarily'
dropped from the root servers, no-one can even claim the domain is getting a
'free' month at anyone else's expense.
30 days is plenty time after a domain gets dropped at rootserver level, to
alert even the stupidest owners their domain is in jeopardy.
Clear cut. Concise. No room for registrar games.
Imho, this is the steering ICANN are paid to come up with but it's way too
simple a solution for them - they need their 2 years of steering committees,
sub-committees and committees looking into the problem to justify their
existence.
While I'm in rant mode, I might as well carry on:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 3:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Renewal - xxxxxx.COM Is Complete
>
> Dear Customer,
>
> Thank you for renewing your Internet identity with Network
> Solutions. Your Web Address (domain name) renewal request is processed!
Followed by
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [NIC-010607.8b2f] Change of Registrar - Domain Name Failed
> Criteria/Denied
>
> Dear Bob Love:
>
> Because the domain name, xxxxxx.COM, did not meet the criteria
> to change registrars, Network Solutions/Verisign has instructed
> the Registry not to change the registrar.
>
> Specifically, the domain name didn't meet the criteria because:
>
> It is not in a paid status at Network Solutions/Verisign.
Note the dates/times. It is f&^%wits like Netsol who most of the anger is
aimed at, but the lack of proper ICANN direction and policy on the issue
does affect ALL the registrars.
Regards
Bob
