Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1601
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, February 19 2003        Volume 01 : Number 1601

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:31:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Vixie Root

Stephane an d all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Tuesday 11 February 2003, at 16 h 47,
> Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > A similar announcement last month, that there will be a copy in Spain
> > of f.root also, went unnoticed, I think.
> ...
> > I am very curious what ICANN thinks about this and how the DoC feels.
>
> I completely share Karl Auerbach's analysis about this issue: ICANN claims to be concerned about the stability of the Internet while it shows a complete lack of interest for any operational issue (and, when it does, it produces texts like <URL:http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm> that are technically ridiculous).

  Very much agreed here.  It is amazing that still these sorts of technically
ridiculous "Faq" files from the IANA are still prevalent.  One can only wonder
if ever the IANA will get it's act together in the next millennium...

>
>
> Do note that ISC is not the only body to work on anycasting the root name servers (so your subject is misleading). On the contrary, anycasting is a very hot subject. RIPE does it, too <URL:http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-268.html>.
>
> AFAIK, none of the planned replicas is actually active yet, but it is a matter of weeks.
>
> For those interested by the technical side:
>
> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/anycast.html
> RFC 1546
> RFC 3258

  Yes.  However this link has precious actual technical information, but
does point to  http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/suzanne.pdf
which is a presentation provided by Suzanne Woolf, but still lacks
very much specific technical information as well but is bit better...

>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:46:14 +0100
From: "DNSO SECRETARIAT" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Public comments on WHOIS closed

[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]

The Public comment period for the Final Whois TF Policy Report on Accuracy
and Bulk Access, 06 Feb 2003 is now closed.

GNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:54:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: The Power of Repetition (Re: [ga] The Vixie Root)

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, at 14:06 [=GMT+0100], Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> Do note that ISC is not the only body to work on anycasting the root
> name servers (so your subject is misleading). [...]  RIPE does it, too.

Oh, I thought we were all very aware of that, and it needed no mention. I
posted something here about the RIPE plans more than three months ago.
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc11/msg02030.html)

Do you think I should repeat myself more often?

- -- 
[16] Do it today.
http://logoff.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:55:40 +0100
From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Vixie Root

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 02:06:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer took time to write:
> > A similar announcement last month, that there will be a copy in Spain
> > of f.root also, went unnoticed, I think.
> ...
> > I am very curious what ICANN thinks about this and how the DoC feels.
> 
> I completely share Karl Auerbach's analysis about this issue: ICANN claims to 
> be concerned about the stability of the Internet while it shows a complete lack 
> of interest for any operational issue 

Seems interesting to me to blame ICANN *when* it act and _also_
*when* it does not....
It may well be possible that ICANN contacted RSOs involved, how could
you now ?

And to set the record straight I do agree almost entirely with Karl.
However I trust the RSO to know what they are doing, and the fact
they do not need ICANN to know what to do, even when taking into
account such high desires as ``Internet stability''.

> (and, when it does, it produces texts like <URL:http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm> that are technically ridiculous).

... as were many arguments on *both* side during the relevant meeting
in Shangha� last year...
(like saying that giving ICANN AXFR access would increase spams and
attacks...)

Patrick Mevzek.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:18:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Vixie Root

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, at 12:55 [=GMT+0100], Patrick Mevzek wrote:

> Seems interesting to me to blame ICANN *when* it act and _also_
> *when* it does not....
> It may well be possible that ICANN contacted RSOs involved, how could
> you now ?

If ICANN is behind the tests/plans with anycast, then it is suspicious
that neither ICANN nor the root-server operators told us about that, e.g.
when the plans were announced.

There is, however, no need for suspicion, just this once. For in fact it
is more a matter of the root-server operators not contacting ICANN. Or
IANA.

- -- 
[19] E@.
http://logoff.org/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:13:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Vixie Root

Patrick and all former DNSO GA members,

Patrick Mevzek wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 02:06:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer took time to write:
> > > A similar announcement last month, that there will be a copy in Spain
> > > of f.root also, went unnoticed, I think.
> > ...
> > > I am very curious what ICANN thinks about this and how the DoC feels.
> >
> > I completely share Karl Auerbach's analysis about this issue: ICANN claims to
> > be concerned about the stability of the Internet while it shows a complete lack
> > of interest for any operational issue
>
> Seems interesting to me to blame ICANN *when* it act and _also_
> *when* it does not....

  Exactly right!  And when ICANN is in the wrong and shown that they
are, either in acting or not acting when they should have, than YES
blame must be attributed as a matter of at least getting the wrong
corrected or adequately addressed.

>
> It may well be possible that ICANN contacted RSOs involved, how could
> you now ?

  They didn't, and I DO know. I track any and all ICANN and IANA
E-Mail addresses.  If they did by phone, than they should not have
continued to have these sorts of problems.  Yet they continue to
have them in ever increasing regularity.  Hence your question
here is answered.

>
>
> And to set the record straight I do agree almost entirely with Karl.
> However I trust the RSO to know what they are doing, and the fact
> they do not need ICANN to know what to do, even when taking into
> account such high desires as ``Internet stability''.

  I think it is very clear that the RSO does not know what they are
doing all of the time, and has more on it's plate than it can deal with
a lot of the time.

>
>
> > (and, when it does, it produces texts like <URL:http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm> that are technically ridiculous).
>
> ... as were many arguments on *both* side during the relevant meeting
> in Shangha� last year...
> (like saying that giving ICANN AXFR access would increase spams and
> attacks...)
>
> Patrick Mevzek.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:06:55 -0800
From: David Nelson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

I haven't been able to find much information these questions and I'm
wondering if you guys can help.  I apologize if these questions have already
been asked and answered, but I'm new to this listserv.

1.  The .com registry seems to have implemented a new policy where they're
holding domain names for 30 days after being released by the registrar, then
charging the registrant $200 to retrieve it from this status.  Does anyone
have any information about why they can do that?  Or even better, is there
any way around this besides waiting for the domain to be released?

2.  Does the .ws registry allow a transfer of registrar?  If so do any of
you know of any registrars that accept incoming transfers of .ws names.  If
not, why?

Thanks for the help,

- -David
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:52:11 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

David - isn't Networkcommerce a registrar?

The answer to question #1 is "via the redemption grace period policy"
[1], the answer to #2 probably won't be found here - .ws is a ccTLD and
can therefore make up their own policies - I don't even think that they
have registrars.

[1] =
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=redemption+grace+perio
d

                       -rwr

"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- - Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of David Nelson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been able to find much information these questions 
> and I'm wondering if you guys can help.  I apologize if these 
> questions have already been asked and answered, but I'm new 
> to this listserv.
> 
> 1.  The .com registry seems to have implemented a new policy 
> where they're holding domain names for 30 days after being 
> released by the registrar, then charging the registrant $200 
> to retrieve it from this status.  Does anyone have any 
> information about why they can do that?  Or even better, is 
> there any way around this besides waiting for the domain to 
> be released?
> 
> 2.  Does the .ws registry allow a transfer of registrar?  If 
> so do any of you know of any registrars that accept incoming 
> transfers of .ws names.  If not, why?
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help,
> 
> -David
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:56:25 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

David,

With regard to part 1 of your question, this part of the Redemption Grace
Period (RGP) that was recently implemented by VeriSign in connection with an
approved policy by ICANN. There have been some implementation bumps
experienced by both registrants and registrars in connection with this new
policy. The registry fee for this service is $80 during the initial period,
although it is scheduled to be lowered to I believe the $40 range. If you
allow the name to expire, you run the risk that it could be acquired by a
third party, thus opening up an additional can of worms.

For some other third party information regarding RGP problems please see the
following article,
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/17/2147258&mode=thread

Some of the things that I would find of real value is how did this name
expire. Was it your fault or an error/omission by the registrar or your
hosting company? Did you have accurate Whois data associated with your name?
Was the name originally registered by yourself or through a third party?

I would find the answers to these questions very informative in trying to
identify the problems people are encountering in this situation.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of David
> Nelson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names
>
>
>
>
> I haven't been able to find much information these questions and I'm
> wondering if you guys can help.  I apologize if these questions
> have already
> been asked and answered, but I'm new to this listserv.
>
> 1.  The .com registry seems to have implemented a new policy where they're
> holding domain names for 30 days after being released by the
> registrar, then
> charging the registrant $200 to retrieve it from this status.  Does anyone
> have any information about why they can do that?  Or even better, is there
> any way around this besides waiting for the domain to be released?
>
> 2.  Does the .ws registry allow a transfer of registrar?  If so do any of
> you know of any registrars that accept incoming transfers of .ws
> names.  If
> not, why?
>
>
> Thanks for the help,
>
> -David
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:04:42 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

Michael,

At the Bucharest session the ICANN Board passed the following resolution:

"Whereas, ICANN resolution 02.45 authorized the convening of a technical 
steering group to develop a concrete proposal for implementation of a 
Redemption Grace Period for deleted domain names;

Whereas, the Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal was posted on 
the ICANN website on 7 June 2002;

Whereas, the proposal called for implementing a Redemption Grace Period by 
instituting an extended Delete Pending Period and a new Restore capability, 
which will be a new Registry Service for which registry operators will be 
able to charge a cost-based service fee;

Whereas, the Redemption Grace Period proposal was discussed and received 
broad community support at the ICANN Public Forum held 27 June 2002 in 
Bucharest, Romania;

Resolved that the President and General Counsel are authorized to conduct 
negotiations on behalf of ICANN toward appropriate revisions to agreements 
between ICANN and the unsponsored TLD registry operators to implement the 
Redemption Grace Period in a manner consistent with the Technical Steering 
Group's Implementation Proposal."

During the Board discussion on this topic Louis Touton made the following 
statement:  "I just would also like to make the point that the language of 
this resolution contemplates that this matter will come back to the Board 
once again, once those – the language of this resolution provides that this 
will come back to the Board again once negotiations are completed. And that 
might also be a juncture to make such statements. If the Board would rather 
move on a faster rate and authorize amendment of the agreements, that's 
something that could be done as well."

As far as I know, while negotiations with the registry operators may have 
commenced, we still don't have Board approval for amendments to these 
registry agreements.  Any fees that registrars are now in the process of 
extorting from registrants aren't even grounded in approved contract language.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:20:59 -0800
From: David Nelson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

Danny,

One other follow up question, once the domain falls into this holding period
with the registry do you have to renew it through the original registrar or
can you retrieve it from anyone.  i.e. If a domain was registered through
Netsol is expired and is now being held by the registry, can I have Enom
retrieve it for me?

thanks.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:05 PM
To: [email-masked]; David Nelson; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws
names

Michael,

At the Bucharest session the ICANN Board passed the following resolution:

"Whereas, ICANN resolution 02.45 authorized the convening of a technical 
steering group to develop a concrete proposal for implementation of a 
Redemption Grace Period for deleted domain names;

Whereas, the Technical Steering Group's Implementation Proposal was posted
on 
the ICANN website on 7 June 2002;

Whereas, the proposal called for implementing a Redemption Grace Period by 
instituting an extended Delete Pending Period and a new Restore capability, 
which will be a new Registry Service for which registry operators will be 
able to charge a cost-based service fee;

Whereas, the Redemption Grace Period proposal was discussed and received 
broad community support at the ICANN Public Forum held 27 June 2002 in 
Bucharest, Romania;

Resolved that the President and General Counsel are authorized to conduct 
negotiations on behalf of ICANN toward appropriate revisions to agreements 
between ICANN and the unsponsored TLD registry operators to implement the 
Redemption Grace Period in a manner consistent with the Technical Steering 
Group's Implementation Proposal."

During the Board discussion on this topic Louis Touton made the following 
statement:  "I just would also like to make the point that the language of 
this resolution contemplates that this matter will come back to the Board 
once again, once those – the language of this resolution provides that this 
will come back to the Board again once negotiations are completed. And that 
might also be a juncture to make such statements. If the Board would rather 
move on a faster rate and authorize amendment of the agreements, that's 
something that could be done as well."

As far as I know, while negotiations with the registry operators may have 
commenced, we still don't have Board approval for amendments to these 
registry agreements.  Any fees that registrars are now in the process of 
extorting from registrants aren't even grounded in approved contract
language.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:32:40 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

David,

Re:  << once the domain falls into this holding period with the registry do 
you have to renew it through the original registrar or can you retrieve it 
from anyone. >>

"Although this Technical Steering Group recognizes that it would be desirable 
to allow registrants to be able to choose to restore their names through a 
registrar other than the one that deleted their registration, it is more 
important to quickly implement a functioning Redemption Grace Period safety 
net. Allowing registrants to choose the redeeming registrar will introduce 
numerous technical and operational complications into the system. The 
Technical Steering Group unanimously agreed that the best course of action 
would be to reserve implementation of registrar choice until a second stage."
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:28:56 -0800
From: David Nelson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

We're a reseller so my information on registry policy is spotty at best.
But, In my experience the registrar will usually hold onto the domain for
like 30 days to give the registrant an opportunity to renew it.  Why not
just require that the registrar extend that period as opposed to sending it
back to the registry...

I've dealt with a few of these cases over the last few days and they've all
been due to registrant error.  Our registrar will hold a domain for 30 to 45
days after the expiration and does not charge us anything extra to renew it
while in an expired status. With the exception of domains that are deleted
due to registrar error, if you haven't noticed that you're domain's been
down for a month well that's your own damn fault.  Why even both with this
holding period?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:56 PM
To: David Nelson; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws
names

David,

With regard to part 1 of your question, this part of the Redemption Grace
Period (RGP) that was recently implemented by VeriSign in connection with an
approved policy by ICANN. There have been some implementation bumps
experienced by both registrants and registrars in connection with this new
policy. The registry fee for this service is $80 during the initial period,
although it is scheduled to be lowered to I believe the $40 range. If you
allow the name to expire, you run the risk that it could be acquired by a
third party, thus opening up an additional can of worms.

For some other third party information regarding RGP problems please see the
following article,
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/17/2147258&mode=thread

Some of the things that I would find of real value is how did this name
expire. Was it your fault or an error/omission by the registrar or your
hosting company? Did you have accurate Whois data associated with your name?
Was the name originally registered by yourself or through a third party?

I would find the answers to these questions very informative in trying to
identify the problems people are encountering in this situation.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of David
> Nelson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names
>
>
>
>
> I haven't been able to find much information these questions and I'm
> wondering if you guys can help.  I apologize if these questions
> have already
> been asked and answered, but I'm new to this listserv.
>
> 1.  The .com registry seems to have implemented a new policy where they're
> holding domain names for 30 days after being released by the
> registrar, then
> charging the registrant $200 to retrieve it from this status.  Does anyone
> have any information about why they can do that?  Or even better, is there
> any way around this besides waiting for the domain to be released?
>
> 2.  Does the .ws registry allow a transfer of registrar?  If so do any of
> you know of any registrars that accept incoming transfers of .ws
> names.  If
> not, why?
>
>
> Thanks for the help,
>
> -David
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:40:07 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

David,

You might want to look at the interim report of the Deletes Task Force.  Not
every registrar was providing a 30 day notice period, and people were
constantly whining about losing their domain names.  Hence, it is believed by
some that an additional 30 days will cause registrants (the greatest single
source of their own problems) to grow a clue.  These same clueless
registrants, who become positively livid if asked to reimburse expenses of a
subsequent registrant, will gladly roll over and pay extortionate fees from
registrars.  Barring that, they will glibly watch the whois, and think they
have a chance over Snapnames etc.

As you might appreciate, the wait-list service will provide a cheaper
alternative to fixing the very same problem IF the corresponding WLS slot is
not taken at the time the registrant realizes that he/she/it was too dumb to
pay a bill.

John

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "David Nelson" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names

>
> We're a reseller so my information on registry policy is spotty at best.
> But, In my experience the registrar will usually hold onto the domain for
> like 30 days to give the registrant an opportunity to renew it.  Why not
> just require that the registrar extend that period as opposed to sending it
> back to the registry...
>
> I've dealt with a few of these cases over the last few days and they've all
> been due to registrant error.  Our registrar will hold a domain for 30 to
45
> days after the expiration and does not charge us anything extra to renew it
> while in an expired status. With the exception of domains that are deleted
> due to registrar error, if you haven't noticed that you're domain's been
> down for a month well that's your own damn fault.  Why even both with this
> holding period?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:56 PM
> To: David Nelson; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws
> names
>
>
> David,
>
> With regard to part 1 of your question, this part of the Redemption Grace
> Period (RGP) that was recently implemented by VeriSign in connection with
an
> approved policy by ICANN. There have been some implementation bumps
> experienced by both registrants and registrars in connection with this new
> policy. The registry fee for this service is $80 during the initial period,
> although it is scheduled to be lowered to I believe the $40 range. If you
> allow the name to expire, you run the risk that it could be acquired by a
> third party, thus opening up an additional can of worms.
>
> For some other third party information regarding RGP problems please see
the
> following article,
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/17/2147258&mode=thread
>
> Some of the things that I would find of real value is how did this name
> expire. Was it your fault or an error/omission by the registrar or your
> hosting company? Did you have accurate Whois data associated with your
name?
> Was the name originally registered by yourself or through a third party?
>
> I would find the answers to these questions very informative in trying to
> identify the problems people are encountering in this situation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of David
> > Nelson
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:07 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [ga] retrieving expired .com names and transferring .ws names
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I haven't been able to find much information these questions and I'm
> > wondering if you guys can help.  I apologize if these questions
> > have already
> > been asked and answered, but I'm new to this listserv.
> >
> > 1.  The .com registry seems to have implemented a new policy where
they're
> > holding domain names for 30 days after being released by the
> > registrar, then
> > charging the registrant $200 to retrieve it from this status.  Does
anyone
> > have any information about why they can do that?  Or even better, is
there
> > any way around this besides waiting for the domain to be released?
> >
> > 2.  Does the .ws registry allow a transfer of registrar?  If so do any of
> > you know of any registrars that accept incoming transfers of .ws
> > names.  If
> > not, why?
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the help,
> >
> > -David
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:42:16 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voting Drama in the Registrars Constituency

Hello,

There's a lot of drama going on at the RC mailing list, for those not
watching it. See:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/mail7.html

and beyond, beginning at the post "Ballot Games" on February 18th.

Hmmm, I think the Tucows folks and Rick Wesson have great reputations,
so I'd have to lean to their side in this drama.

Should be interesting to watch this power struggle unfold.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1601
*************************