<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
- To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:36:18 +1000
- Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcVlOMljQGwOzCxfQyWDOUKgdoRBtAAPvwuA
- Thread-topic: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
Hello Tim,
>
> The add grace period abuse needs to be addressed separately.
> I see no benefit in dilluting that issue by labeling it a
> business model.
Good point. I was not intending to have a discussion about the add
grace period, I was merely pointing out current practice.
The add grace period is a characteristic of the current registry
service. It needs to be clear whether the current activities are a
breach of the current registry-registrar agreement, or whether Verisign
wishes to change rules for the grace period in some way. If
Verisign wishes to change the rules, then I think it would be useful
for registrars to discuss how the rules should change.
So to be clear - I was proposing a workshop to consider new services,
without changing the current service.
I agree that we could also have a discussion about changes to the rules
regarding the add-delete grace period of the current registry service.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|