I urge you all to go to: http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm on the bottom of the page there is a feedback email link - use it! Let our concerns be heard
cheers Genie ----- Original Message ----- From: "John T. Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:51 PM Subject: RE: [ga] Domain name redemption: Supplemental paper / post-deletion transfers > 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 > > > > > > > >
