Re: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position

["Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your are right, this is a bit off-topic. However, if we keep the exp date
in the whois we should look at implementing a "real" exp date instead of
the autorenewal mechanism we have now.

Yours,
Marcus


> Marcus, I would agree. However, this could easily be fixed by the
> registries without removing the expiration date.
> 
> Tim 
> 
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency
> Position
> From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, October 05, 2005 2:40 am
> To: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> CORE does this on its own whois since the beginning and has always
> recommended this to registries as well. Everyone of us has an
> avoidable amount of support dedicated to explaining customers that
> the autorenewal date is not the expiration date.
> 
> Yours,
> Marcus
> 
> 
> > At 07:12 PM 10/4/05, Paul Stahura wrote:
> > >2) Some registries cause another customer service problem and that is
> > >when a name is auto-renewed but the registrant hasn't paid.
> > 
> > Dear Paul:  Why not ask registries or ICANN to have the registry whois say 
> > "auto-renewed" (or something like that) until the 45 days passes unless the 
> > registrar executes an explicit renewal?  Regards, BobC 
> > 
> > 
>