This morning I went through and collected up 340 two-word domain names that are either in use or expired and that all have the same first word. After parsing the Expire Dates, I get these results:
340 Total domain names with same first word 170 Expired - exactly half 47 Expired but still On Hold 25 Expired 42 to 295 days ago 13 Expired over 200 days ago Right at half of those expired are expired within the normal 45 day period and still not dropped. The OTHER half though... 100% of those held over 35 days (even Register.com says they drop after 35 days) (and this includes the only one in the 40's at 42 days on this list) - that's 100% folks - are being held by...drum roll please.... 100% ____ VeriSign ____ By this list alone, they had to have started this policy no later than mid-summer of last year as the eldest one expired on 2001-05-02. Statistics speak wonders sometimes...sometimes I just wish they were screaming a little quieter! John LogonISP [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- Genie Livingstone Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:27 AM Passing this on from GA list - Interesting how everyone seems to address everything in deleted process BUT domain hoarding of thousands of domains by Verisign AACI.COM Record last updated on 13-Nov-2001. Record expires on 16-Jul-2000. Record created on 15-Jul-1997. cheers Genie Livingstone Thomas Roessler wrote on 2/21/02 > ICANN has published a supplemental paper on the Redemption Grace > Period Proposal, > <http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm>. > > In short, registrar processes remain mostly unchanged, registries > should be allowed to take a "cost-recovery service charge". (But > you read this on icann.blog already. ;-) > > > What's more interesting is the section on "Enabling Registrants to > Choose the Renewing Registrar". Yes, folks, you read this > correctly: What this paper seems to be proposing is nothing less > than post-deletion (!!) domain transfers without any involvement of > the loosing registrar. I sense a new work item for the transfers > task force when it comes to the implementation of this. > > Note, however, that this only makes sense when a hoarding policy is > introduced first: Using redemption for registrar transfers can only > work if registrant knows rather precisely at which point of time the > delete command will be issued. > > Comments? Should we possibly propose such a policy? If so, I > suppose we should have something ready before Ghana. > -- > Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/ > -- > This message was passed to you via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. > Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to unsubscribe > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html > > >
