RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,

It's important to recognize that a first-come, first-served approach
does not mean that 'anyone' would be successful at registering deleted
names.  Companies who focus on registering just-deleted names have
mastered automated systems and processes that make it very difficult for
the average person to play the game.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kidsearch [mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:30 PM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; Gomes, Chuck; Danny Younger; Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar
> 
> I see the justification used here for auctioning names off 
> after expiration, but it defeats the first-come first-serve 
> nature of domain names and how they should be distributed. If 
> a domain name expires, it should go back into the pool so 
> that anyone can register the name at normal registration 
> prices period. There really is no justification, other than 
> greed by registrars who control these names for holding 
> auctions, using them in parking schemes, and making deals 
> with domainers to use them for profit they in turn share with 
> the registrar.
> 
> Justification comes easy when it's something that makes you 
> money. However it denies users the right to register a name 
> after it has dropped into the pool.
> 
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Danny Younger" 
> <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; "Bashar Al-Abdulhadi" <bashar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:05 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar
> 
> 
> > Chuck:
> >
> > Most registrars now have some kind of similar direct 
> transfer clause.
> > The things to look for are whether a registrant can opt out 
> of it -- as
> > one can in our clause below -- and whether the registrant 
> may share in
> > the proceeds of a post-expiration auction of the domain 
> name -- as we
> > also provide.
> >
> > In the past, most of these names were being grabbed by a 
> few registrars
> > in the drop pool and auctioned off post-deletion with no 
> benefit to the
> > former registrant.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Jon Nevett
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:22 AM
> > To: Danny Younger; Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
> > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar
> >
> > I wonder how many registrars have clauses similar to this?
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged,
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly 
> prohibited. If
> > you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:48 PM
> >> To: Gomes, Chuck; Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
> >> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar
> >>
> >> Chuck,
> >>
> >> One of the problems that we registrants are facing stems from
> >> Terms of Service Agreements deliberately designed to
> >> circumvent the Expired Domain Deletion Policy.  For example,
> >> consider this clause in the Network Solutions Service
> >> Agreement version 7.7.7:
> >>
> >> "Should you not renew the domain name during any applicable
> >> grace period, you agree that unless you notify us to the
> >> contrary we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer
> >> the domain name to Network Solutions or a third party on your
> >> behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to as a
> >> "Direct Transfer"), and your failure to so notify us after
> >> the domain name expiration date shall constitute your consent
> >> to such a Direct Transfer."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bashar,
> >> >
> >> > Registrars should be able to address this better than me
> >> because they
> >> > work with it everyday, but the clause that I thought was 
> especially
> >> > relevant was the following:
> >> >
> >> > "3.7.5.3 In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as 
> defined in
> >> > Section
> >> > 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within
> >> > 45 days of either the
> >> > registrar or the registrant terminating a registration 
> agreement."
> >> > Extenuating circumstances are clearly spelled out in
> >> Section 3.7.5.1
> >> > and any that are not listed must be approved by ICANN.  So
> >> my question
> >> > is this: if no extenuating circumstances exist, may a
> >> registrar keep a
> >> > name longer than
> >> > 45 days before deleting it and still be in compliance with this
> >> > policy?
> >> >
> >> > Chuck Gomes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> ______________________
> >> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love
> >> to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
> >> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
> >>
> >
> > 
> 
>