ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar


Bottom line, it is ultimately the registrants responsibility to keep its registration current.

That statement is exactly right Tim. Could not agree more. The fact that a registrar even gives ANY grace period at all after expiration is good customer service but should not be required in my honest opinion.

The rest of your post is where my concern is focused. Registrars maintaining control of domain names that should be going back into the pool for registration by whomever gets to it first and at normal registration prices.

It's my opinion that it is a conflict of interest to both be in the registrar or registry business and in the domain speculation, domain parking, domain auction, and domain tasting business. Many do it through side companies that appear to be separate but are not. The fact they do it that way shows they know it's wrong.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com




----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar




The easiest way for registrants to renew at near cost is to do it before it expires. Most registrars, like Go Daddy, send multiple expiration notices via email prior to expiration (we send five starting at 90 days out) and in fact registrars are required by the RAA to send at least two notices, one after expiration (see section 3.7.5 of the RAA). Many registrars also use other methods to contact registrants for renewal including phone and snail mail (Go Daddy does both). Bottom line, it is ultimately the registrants responsibility to keep its registration current.


That said, before there was any up stream re-distirbution of expired names by registrars, expired names that dropped were grabbed regularly by a handful of registrar entities that maintain pools of accredited registrars just for that purpose (as others have already pointed out). The names were then auctioned off or perhaps held if traffic indicated they could be monetized profitably. This still takes place with names that ultimately drop. At least one registry's response (VeriSign) to that was the Wait Listing Service (WLS) and later the Consolidated Listing Service (CLS). Both services were attempts to capture this aftermarket revenue opportunity downstream at the registry level. That should not be a surprise since VeriSign is a public for-profit company who is expected to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Registrars are also for-profit companies and so their reaction to keep this activity upstream should also be no surprise.


That said, most registrars involved in the upstream market for expired names realize that registrants are their customers and providing them quality services are essential to the registrars continued success. While processes may vary, most make allowances for the previous registrant to regain their name(s) through post expiration renewal. While that may involve additional fees of some nature, it is a more sure process for the typical registrant than trying to compete with the drop catching registrar pools. At Go Daddy, for the typical domain name the registrant can regain control for anywhere from the cost of the original registration fee to the cost of redemption from the RGP ($80 at Go Daddy, half of which goes to pay the ICANN approved registry RGP fee). Only a small percentage of Go Daddy's expired names are redistributed through its auction process at higher prices.


Given the current circumastancs and applicable polies it makes no sense for registrars to allow the process to fall back downstream since it would have no benefit to the previous registrants and would simply result in a less predicatble outcome.


Tim Ruiz


-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ga] keeping expired domains by a registrar From: Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, April 05, 2007 3:46 am To: ga the DNSO <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.
>
>

Full disclosure of the deletion date/time (to prevent 24/7 hammering
of the registry) along with rules for 1-shot per deleting domain per
registrar would reduce the success of the automated boutique
registrars and make it easier for joe blow to register it at cost.









<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>