ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg

  • To: "Mitchell, Champ" <Cmitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
  • From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:35:46 -0400
  • Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <9E93DEC285888046B8949287D8B8376401E201E9@VAMAIL3.CORPIT.NS I.NET>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Do you feel that it's worse to register expired domains then delete 
them within a few days, or to never release expired domains?


At 11:29 AM 5/31/2005 -0400, Mitchell, Champ wrote:
>With due respect to Ross, I do not see our bylaws or website as "burning
>priority issues". I can agree that whois and transfers are probably more
>important to us than this. However, don't you think that the diminution
>in threads per registrar and the whole game of creating registrars for
>no reason other than to get more threads, often jut to lease them, is a
>direct result of the grace period? I do. If they couldn't use the grace
>period in an unintended and inappropriate manner to avoid cost and risk,
>they would not do hundreds of thousands of registrations with the
>intention to keep only the small fraction that appear profitable. Even
>more abusive is the register, delete, reregister scam --- and scam is
>what it is. Inevitably this impacts all legitimate registrars.
>Ross, I would never claim to be as knowledgeable as you about the
>intricacies of the domain registration system, but over 30 years of
>experience has taught me that when one of my suppliers is slammed, I
>always end up paying part of the cost. 
>I completely agree with you that the registries, particularly VeriSign,
>have the power to have addressed this long ago and have failed to act.
>Frankly, I don't understand why, although I have heard its rationale.
>Clearly you are right that they should take the lead. However, this does
>not change the fact that ultimately the legitimate registrars suffer
>from this conduct and, if as it appears on its face, this is an abuse
>that can be easily corrected, it would seem that we should support a
>correction.  Best, Champ
>W. G. Champion Mitchell
>Chairman & CEO
>Network Solutions Inc.
>(703) 668-5200
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:05 AM
>To: Ross Rader
>Cc: jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>registrars@xxxxxxxx; faure@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model -
>proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
>I agree that registries should be concerned about this practice. They
>may see some short term benefit to this activity but it will be short
>Already there is at least one user doing repetative adds and deletes for
>the same names to apparently benefit from the traffic without ever
>really paying for the names.
>In some cases these names infringe on the IP rights of others but not
>long enough to always be seen.
>It may only be a few players today but I don't think we should be short
>sighted about this. Unchecked it WILL become many millions of names per

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>