RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar

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

Paul,

Now I understand the implication you assumed from my comments.  Because
I was not thinking in that direction at all, I totally missed your
concern. 

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: Paul Stahura [mailto:paul.stahura@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 6:56 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Danny Younger; Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar
> 
> Based on the many years I've come to know you (10 years?), I 
> find that really surprising, but I'll take your statement as 
> true, coming as it is, from you.
> 
> Do you agree, now that you've considered it, that it (monopoly in the
> drop) IS the implication?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:39 PM
> To: Paul Stahura; Danny Younger; Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar
> 
> No Paul I didn't.  And I didn't even consider implications 
> for VeriSign.
> 
> 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: Paul Stahura [mailto:paul.stahura@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 6:30 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Danny Younger; Bashar Al-Abdulhadi
> > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar
> > 
> > Chuck, I think you know the answer.  
> > 
> > I think it's obvious that you want to have them all deleted so that 
> > VeriSign will regain its monopoly in the drop.
> > WLS/CLS anyone?
> > As we all know, monopolies are always good for consumers  :>)
> > 
> > Registrars have contracts with registrants.  That agreement 
> is called 
> > the registration agreement.  Those registration agreements 
> have been 
> > approved by ICANN during the accreditation and re-accreditation 
> > process.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:22 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
> > > 
> > 
>