[policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
steve at blighty.com
Mon Aug 13 20:17:18 UTC 2007
On Aug 13, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>> but today that provision is: If you buy a domain you have 5 days to
>> 'return' it. The reason behind the return could be: "oops, I
>> typo'd" or
>> "hurray, please refund me for the 1M domains I bought 4.99 days
>> ago!". The
>> 'protect the consumer' problem is what's enabling tasting.
> So combine these ideas with the possibility that someone will claim
> various consumer protection laws apply to these transactions and
> want to cancel the contract within three days.
The whole "consumer protection" thing is bit of a red herring.
> Instead, why don't we have a three day waiting period when the
> domain is
> "reserved" but not active. Grandma could notice her typo, credit
> card processor's could notice fake card numbers, and so on and
> rescind the registration.
The typo-or-whatever is likely not to be noticed until the domain is
actually in use, assuming
that such a thing ever actually happens.
> After three days the sale is "final." Only then the name is made
> active in the zone files.
> Do people really not plan that far ahead, that they need brand new
> domain names to be active (not just reserved) within seconds?
Yes. Legitimately so, too. Sometimes because of mistakes, sometimes
because someone sees
a need for a new domain name, and is ready to use it the same day.
The problem is not instant registrations. The problem is free
More information about the NANOG