At 9/25/04 7:15 AM, elliot noss wrote: >further to this, I recognize that this is a contentious issue.
I still don't quite understand what Tucows is saying, unfortunately. Are you confirming that you might be considering changing the registrant agreement in a way that allows Tucows to auction off domain names, even if the registrant doesn't explicitly say "I no longer want example.com and I want you to auction it for me"? If so, I simply don't believe Tucows can make any change to the registrant agreement that gives them any power over the domain name without the explicit consent of the registrant (and by "consent", I don't mean burying "you consent that we can auction your domain name" in an agreement that we all know few people ever read). Any such change would violate the EDDP. Registrars can't do anything with a domain name if the name holder disappears and does not respond to renewal notices; all they can do is delete them. The EDDP makes this quite clear. Domain names are a public resource licensed to a registrant; Tucows just processes the transaction. If a Tucows-sponsored domain name expires and the registrant does not respond to any notices asking if the registrant wants to renew it, or auction it, or whatever, Tucows *must* delete it and return it to "the public"; Tucows has no more right to make extra money off that domain than GoDaddy, VeriSign, me, or the Pope. (I should emphasize that if the name holder decides he no longer wants it and explicitly signs up for a Tucows service that helps him auction it, I have no problem with that at all -- that's a good idea, and congratulations on such a service if that's the final version. I'd almost certainly use it myself.) >it is important in working through this analysis to keep context. in >other words we are not designing a system on a blank sheet of paper. we >are required to do it in the context of the current market with all its >twists and turns. I think if all of you were privy to the views of most >other registrars (some of course are public with their positions) you >would be quite disappointed. I'm sure you're right, but no registrar can violate an ICANN consensus policy; registrars who do so should be punished, not emulated in a race to the bottom. I expect Tucows can come up with a service that respects ICANN policy; let the others mire themselves in litigation, bad will, and so forth. Also, James Ussher-Smith wrote: > I believe what James is saying is that everyone will be automatically > opted-in unless they opt out. Whatever other form this discussion takes, I'm going to complain *every single time* someone uses the phrase "opted in" to mean "didn't opt out of something buried in dozens of paragraphs of legalese". The correct term for that is "an opt out system"; it has nothing to with "opt in" at all. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies http://www.tigertech.net/ "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." -- Darwin
