Correction to: Re: [ga][RAA] Involuntary expirations

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joop and all,

  Joop has a very good point here IMHO.  I however believe
it is NOT realistic for the previous registrant of an expired 
domain name should have approval status for the reregistration 
of that domain name, but that expired domain should be held
for at least 45 days as Joop and held in the pool i.e. not
available for tasting operations.  In addition, the previous
registrant should have first option to reregister that same
domain name at the original price for the first 20 days after
it originally expired, and again at the original registration
fee.

  Secondly tasting should be abolished as it has shown to
be a very bad and dangerous practice.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 02:13 a.m. 18/04/2007, you wrote:
> >Jeff,
> >
> >Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I read the article and I am
> >not buying it. I saw only a baldfaced assertion of stress but no evidence
> >except on behalf of an employee with a mega corp. And it would appear to
> >be that employees' job to do what she was complaining about doing.
> >As for everyone making money on the system; what is wrong with that?
> >
>
>   I think it is sleazy to make money from involuntary expirations.
>
> It feels like finding and keeping lost property. To use a system of
> "finding" is o.k., but if the owner of lost property shows up at your
> whois, you don't charge him $1000 to get it back.
> This is the  common sleaze that registrants complain  about.
>
> Re-registration within 45 days should  require explicit approval from the
> last registrant.
> Just a small  safeguard to strengthen registrant rights and make Domain
> Names that much more valuable.
>
> -joop-

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827