I believe what James is saying is that everyone will be automatically opted-in unless they opt out.
That, to me, seems like a perfectly acceptable system. If the user wants the domain, renew it. If they don't, then I don't see any harm in auctioning it off in some kind of profit sharing scheme. (As long as Tucows respects the full 30 day grace period). If they have a specific reason for not auctioning it off and not renewing it, then opt-out. Regards James Ussher-Smith Director, Process IT Ltd -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert L Mathews Sent: 25 September 2004 05:49 To: Untitled Subject: Re: ICANN caught with pants down -- implements Expired Domain Deletions Policy At 9/24/04 7:17 PM, James M Woods wrote: >I never did really answer that question did I? Sorry about that. If the >question was "are we going to have an explicit op in clause in the reg >agreement" then the answer is yes. Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't get it. How can you have an "opt in clause" in a registration agreement? "Opt in" isn't a "clause"; it's an action. It would mean that the registrant intentionally takes some extra action to participate, instead of having his name deleted at the registry when it expires, as required under the EDDP. For example, the registrant could opt in by going to a Web site and clicking "sell my domain name to anyone who is willing to pay for it", or by replying affirmatively to an e-mail message, or something like that. If he doesn't do anything extra, the domain would not be included in the scheme, because he hasn't "opted in". Is that what you mean? >But we have an Opt out mechanism in our >process which as so wonderfully put by George is offensive in NSI's ;-) Again, forgive my denseness, but I don't get it. If it's opt in, you don't need an opt out mechanism, because anyone who doesn't opt in is already out. "Opt in" and "opt out" are mutually exclusive (except to spammers, of course, who use the phrase "you opted in" to mean "you haven't opted out" -- I hope Tucows doesn't think it means that). If you could clarify that it will, in fact, be opt in (requiring explicit action to be included) and not opt out (requiring explicit action to be excluded), I would appreciate it. Thanks! -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
