Hello, --- Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I consider it a breach of trust. > > I almost think that I have some > > obligation to notify existing customers of this change in policy at > > OpenSRS that was done without any disclosure to us. > > > > William, what did you drink today? Seriously, if someone let's drop a > > domain, he let's drop a domain. Full stop. Whatever happens after > this with the domain is not his game anymore. Where's trust coming in > > here? What trust? > If Tucows is proposing what you are saying they are actually giving > Tucows resellers an advantage over others. That's the same as if you > would offer a to-be-expired domain to your own clients before it > really expires. What's wrong with this?
It's completely wrong, if you want any chance at a premium name. Suppose Beijing.com expires. Why should NSI have a right to decide who the new owner will be, or dictate the method by which that name is allocated (e.g. via an auction system, or perhaps they decide they'll keep it for themslves). It's not the former registrant's game when a name expires, true. BUT, it's also not the registrar's game after that (they only wish it was that way!). The process has been that the names are deleted, so that any registrar can attempt to get them. If you want to vote to change that system, have a debate at ICANN and we'll add up the votes and whatever happens will be the new system. But for any registrar to upset this balance with a unilateral move to take control of expired names is going into uncharted territory. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com
