RE: [registrars] Deletes task force

["Monte Cahn" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed!

Monte Cahn
Founder/CEO
 
Monte@xxxxxxxxxxx
Monte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
O - 954-984-8445
F - 954-969-9155
 
Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:34 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Deletes task force


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.

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

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------------