Re: [council] Agenda Request

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ross,

May I rais ea  questions regarding this subject, for clarification?

1-  Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries - motion to
initiate an issues report addressed the *issue of expiring domain
names.*  Draft resolution:  Whereas the high demand amongst registrars
on behalf
of.....
>From the way the wording of the resolution, it seem to be coming from a
different perspective of the situation – it is saying that there is an
overload of requests to the registries' systems – which creates problems.
This is a different point of view from saying – there is a problem with the
registrars auctioning the domains before the end of the grace period.   It
seems like the people that wrote this resolution are aiming to "ease" on the
"poor" registries, and are preparing the ground for maybe an alternate
service to offer by having their own auction service for expiring domains.
Do you think this is the case?

2- One of the things that was raised in this discussion of the GNSO was the
"meanwhile" solution some registrars (usually the big ones like NSI,
dotster, godaddy) found which is – don't let the domains be deleted so some
other registrars can re-register and auction – put them to auction the day
they expure (during the first 45 days of the grace period).  Are we pro or
foe the "meanwhile" solution.

Regards
Sophia




On 14/03/06, Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sophia B wrote:
> > Dear All
> >
> > A background paper or issues report is appropriate.  Thanks Merilyn for
> the
> > suggestion below.  I have been active in this business and have learned
> that
> > extension of the dates does not discipline the Clients.   Ross, I think
> your
> > proposal is reasonable and we all like to understand the issues,
> specially,
> > if there is a far reaching implication.
>
> Yes - a backgrounder or issues report would be an excellent first step.
>
> -r
>