[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  
registrations.

Cheers,
   Steve




More information about the NANOG mailing list