Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] cost of recovery during Registrar grace period.
- To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] cost of recovery during Registrar grace period.
- From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:53:20 +0000
On 10 Jan 2010, at 00:40, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2010, at 00:07, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
> > Hello Michele
> > This working group happens to be a GNSO working group, but the issue of
> > Post-Expiry Domain Name Recovery isn't an issue that is gTLD specific. So,
> > why is this ccTLD example "beyond the scope of this working group?"
> Because there are well over 200 ccTLDs with very different policies?
> Good point. 200 different policies among ccTLD Registrars plus as many
> policies as there are gTLDs makes it necessary to bring in some standards in
> terms of recovery policies across the domain name industry worldwide.
With all due respect I think you are really going to have to start living in
this world, not in some Utopia
While it might be within the power of this WG to influence policy with respect
to how gTLD registries / registrars and registrants interact, there is
absolutely no way that anything we discuss here is going to have any impact on
I assume you are aware of the basic fact that ccTLDs can pretty much do
whatever they want?
> Just to give you ONE example
> .be - if the domain is not renewed will go straight into quarantine. The
> quarantine release fee charged by the registry operator is several multiples
> of the registration / renewal fee
> Because this _is_ a GNSO working group not a CCNSO working group?
> > Perhaps some of the Registrar Members of this WG could state whether or not
> > the same practice prevails among gTLD Registrars for gTLD domains.
> What makes you think that the difference in price is caused by the registrar?
> Irrespective of whether it is caused by the Reseller, Registrar, Registry or
> even ICANN, such a difference in price is harsh on the Registrant.
That is a matter of perspective. If the registrant wants to keep using the
domain name AND the registrar has given them warning of the expiry, then why
shouldn't the registrar and registry charge extra to facilitate that?
I'd hardly consider $70 a lot of money to retain a domain name that was of
value to me or my business.
I'll give you a simple analogy.
If I don't pay my domestic gas bill I will get cut off. If I want to get it
reconnected I need to pay a penalty. It may be annoying, but I wouldn't pay the
penalty if I paid my bill on time, would I?
You'll also find that under EU law if you don't pay a bill on time contractors
have a legal right to levy penalties.
We could probably find other examples ..
> If it is not caused by the Registrars, please say so, so that this issue is
> better understood by this group.
If it was caused by the registrars solely, would I have asked the question I
asked you already?
Mr Michele Neylon
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845