Thursday, Thursday, December 20, 2001, 3:29:37 PM, William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, Thursday, December 20, 2001, 3:02:02 PM, George Kirikos wrote:

>> Hello,

>> --- zxcvb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The domains you discuss that were eventually released were paid for
>>> at
>>> one time but then were not renewed.

>> These are the names that I'm concerned about (i.e. modern names, i.e.
>> 100% of the OpenSRS names, since they are under the modern system, and
>> 99.999% of the NSI names, i.e. excluding a handful of legacy names.

>> I think the ultimate solution that would be fairest (and also be SEEN
>> to be fairest) is if ALL OpenSRS names that expire go into the 2 pm
>> batch cycle. Otherwise, there'd be no way to know whether certain names

> I believe they are, Scott can you confirm that this is the case?

> Are all expired domains being released normally at this strage?


Hmm, I don't know how much credenance to give this, but I've received
an out of band report on this subject that bothers me.

That OpenSRS is currently letting a reseller pay a fixed monthly fee
for first option on all names being deleted from OpenSRS.

I really hope this is not true.

This is quite serious if true. This is the kind of thing that becomes
a deal breaker.  I really thought OpenSRS would continue to stick to
higher standards than other registrars as far as doing the "right"
thing, and in doing so, develop a real strong loyalty among their
resellers, which would end up being more profitable for them in the
long run than engaging in the kind of shenanigans that we have come to
expect from the more sleazy registrars, like Register.com and
Verisign, to name just two.

The source for his info is not one I can just dismiss.  As a matter of
fact, when he first brought it to my attention, a while back, I did
tell him he was wrong, that it wasn't possible.  I based that on my
belief that OpenSRS wouldn't participate in that kind of activity.

But in light of what has been shown here, and Scott's comments, I'm no
longer sure I was correct in that.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--

Reply via email to