RE: [DNS] Price of fish

RE: [DNS] Price of fish

From: Jon Lawrence <jon§>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:12:56 +0100
If I were a registrar or even a reseller, I would be doing everything within
my power to ensure that I had contacted every domain name holder on my books
at least twice in the month or two preceding the expiration of their domain

I don't think it's got anything to do with being 'required' to contact
registrants whose names are expiring, its just plain common business sense.
After all, if they're going to renew, they're going to have to pay you money
to do so.

Also, the costs of doing so are trivial if you have any sort of database at
all and are IMO a normal cost of operating in this industry that would any
be well covered by the revenue received by customers renewing their names.

Any registrar that doesn't send out some sort of expiry warning to their
customers is not going to be in business for very long at all.


-----Original Message-----
From: Saliya Wimalaratne [mailto:saliya&#167;]
Sent: 22 September 2002 19:58
To: dns&#167;
Subject: Re: [DNS] Price of fish

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Chris Berkeley wrote:

> That is besides the point. Sites should not be taken down without warning
> until the "new system"  has been in force for a couple of years and all
registrants know
> the rules.

Hi Chris,

I'm guessing that what you're referring to is the email service offered by
Melbourne IT ("your domain is about to expire; do you want to renew it ?")
which is obviously not offered by all registrars under the new regime. In
fact, I don't think that even Melbourne IT offer this service anymore;
I could be wrong.

If body 'x' (registry, registrar, auDA) is *required* to contact
ALL 'about-to-be-deregistered' domain holders, to verify that they *really*
want the domain to be deregistered, it instantly adds cost across-the-board.

For the case of someone who has forgotten, or did not know, or whatever,
yes, an extra charge could be added to their renewal to cover this cost.

For the case of a domain that is intentionally being expired;
the "other" domain name holders will be forced to pick up the tab.
There's nobody to give the extra charge to directly.

I couldn't speculate on what proportion of renewals fall into
which categories. I *can* state that I don't like the idea of
adding an extra charge across the board at the base level.

.au isn't offering everything that people want from it, this is plain.
Otherwise no Australian would register outside of .au ;) But to get
back to the point - it's the domain holder's responsibility to manage
their domain (this is true of the 'old' system AND the 'new' one). Not
someone else's.



List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (360 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:06 UTC