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

["Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob would make the fifth. Richard you are the sixth.

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.
http://www.nameintelligence.com  

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Lau [mailto:richard@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:38 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position 

Seconding Jay's proposed amendment:

In addition to the confusion caused by not displaying the Expiration Date, 
it will actually create more opportunities for the Letter/Transfer/Renewal 
that the removal seems to be trying to address. Let me explain, currently 
it is assumed that certain companies send out LTRs based on the Expiration. 
Fast forward to when no Expiration is shown and these companies will simply 
send out LTRs *every* year based on the Created Date. Customers will do a 
whois-lookup, see that they do not have an Expiration Date shown and may 
easily assume that their domain has in fact expired, or is up for a renewal.

Asking customers to log in to check each expiry date via the interfaces of 
the numerous registrars they deal with instead of running their current 
software or scripts is not going to go over well with domain portfolio 
owners who own 500 to 10,000 domains.

Rather than reducing the volume of renewal scam letters, I believe removing 
the Expiration Date will significantly increase the volume.

I second Jay's proposed amendment of the motion (Keep Expiration Date in 
the registry output), and would also lend my support to his Registry A/B 
proposal.

Richard
DomainClip.com