RE: [registrars] Marina del Rey Registrar Meeting - September 12
- To: "'Bhavin Turakhia'" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars'" <Registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Marina del Rey Registrar Meeting - September 12
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:13:15 -0500
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <001a01c361ab$aeb957f0$0daa86ca@bhavin>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Right, we do that at VeriSign. But it is not ideal because then you end
up with creating nameservers for this sole purpose. And does that work
with NeuLevel, Afilias, etc.?
From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:01 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Registrars'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Marina del Rey Registrar Meeting - September
> If the registries are willing to be more involved, then
> perhaps they could take it upon themselves to agree to cancel
> these names if the nameservers in question no longer ping. A
> separate request to cancel names of this nature would be
> submitted, the registry would check them out, and delete them
> if appropriate.
> Other ideas?
Currently I believe we handle it by simply changing the nameservers to
"nameservername.directideleteddomains.com". That works fine for us.
Doesn't everyone do that?