[policy] When Tech Meets Policy...

Steve Atkins 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 mailing list