Re: [registrars] Deletes task force

[Larry Erlich <erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob Hall wrote:
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> I believe the renewal should be explicit and not the deletion.  I do not
> agree that we need to leave something the way it is simply because that is
> the way it is.
> 
> The other advantage of this is that we would not be charged the six dollars
> until the explicit command was sent, so we would be more in charge of our
> cash account at the Registry.
> 
> However, one way to skin the cat and make everyone happy would be for the
> Registry to allow Registrars to choose what method they prefer.  It should
> be a simple flag at the Registry I would think.

That would be a good idea.

Larry Erlich

> 
> Rob.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Larry Erlich
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:50 PM
> To: Robert F. Connelly
> Cc: Registrars Constituency; Mieko Umezu
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Deletes task force
> 
> I agree that a deletion should be explicit and
> the legacy auto renew should stand. I can't imagine
> why existing systems needs to be revised to change
> a practice that has been in place for several
> years now.
> 
> Larry Erlich
> 
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
> 
> Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> >
> > At 06:26 PM 12/1/03 +1100, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> >
> >      ie the second sentence needs to be read in the context of
> >      the first sentence which reads:
> >      At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or
> >      on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the
> >      registration be renewed within the time specified in a
> >      second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of
> >      extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the
> >      registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period
> >      (although registrars may choose to cancel the name earlier).
> >
> >      There is no intent to indicate that a registry would cancel
> >      a name prior to the completion of the grace period -
> >      otherwise it wouldn't be a grace period.
> >
> > Dear Bruce:  That's how I read it, even though I truncated it in my
> > question.
> >
> > We would not want to have a registrY delete *after* the grace period.
> > Deletion should not be made without an explicit *deletion* command
> > from the registrar.  At present, as far as I know, there is no
> > requirement for an explicit renewal.  If we get paid by any means, we
> > take the domain off registrar-hold and permit it to resolve.
> >
> > Prior to expiration, we accept credit card renewals and send an
> > explicit renewal for one or more years automatically.  If the
> > registrant sends a bank transfer prior to expiration, we send the
> > renewal command manually.  If they pay during the grace period for one
> > year, we ignore it and let the auto-renewal stand.  If they renew for
> > two to nine years, we manually extend the expiration date.
> >
> > If I have properly interpreted it, the TF report would allow (or
> > encourage) a registry to delete *after* the grace period if they hear
> > nothing from us, we want to have our voices heard in opposition to
> > such an arbitrary act by a registrY.
> >
> > Regards, BobC, from Tokyo
>