Hello, --- Scott Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:58 AM 12/20/01 -0800, George Kirikos wrote: > >This is going to set a *bad* precedent. What if NSI starts doing > this? > > NSI registrar already does this in a big way. NSI registry is > specifically > prevented from doing this.
You seem to be making a differentiation between the registrar and registry operator, with respect to the rules of the game... > >Allowing certain parties to cherry-pick the best names is hardly > >consistent with the above. > > I disagree. The points above refer specifically to the "registry" > practices > wrt names explicitly deleted by registrars. The allegations today > stem from > the fact that we are "lighting up" (putting in the zone files) > expired > names at day 40 for names that we have not yet deleted, but intend Just to be very clear (since in a prior message you pointed out that "No one has asked directly... ") 1. Is it OpenSRS' position that a REGISTRAR is under no obligation to delete a domain name once the prior registrant has allowed the domain to expire? 2. You wrote "NSI registrar already does this in a big way.". Can you provide some examples of NSI registrar names where they've given any preferential access to names that were not renewed by a prior registrant, i.e. names that were not deleted, but transferred directly to a third party for consideration? When high-profile names like canary.com, compare.com, beijing.com, peking.com, have been seen to drop into the open pool, which were once at NSI registrar, someone at NSI registrar should be losing their job if they were permitted under "the rules" to simply not delete it, and do with it what they desire to maximize shareholder value. Or, perhaps NSI registrar has to play by certain rules too.... Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
