hi George,
Whether that domain has active MX records was not really germane to my larger point.
Let's use another example of a domain I just researched on the NAF site:
<XXXXXXXXXXXX.top> (I redacted the second level domain); if you want to research the specific domain on the NAF website, it is Case Number: 1621938
This domain: 1) was registered on May 23, 2015; 2) was suspended on June 21, 2015; 3) had its Whois updated on March 28, 2017; 4) is still registered, and not set to expire until May 23, 2018;
5) is still sponsored by the same registrar (that appears in the URS decision); 6) is still registered to the same registrant (that appears in the URS decision); 7) the registrant has control over the Name Servers, i.e. the Name Servers are a well known 3rd party, and not associated the NAF's servers; 8) the Whois reflects the domain status is: "Domain Status: ok
https://icann.org/epp#OK"; 9) the domain is offered for sale online for $1000.
Going back to Jon's original question (which I agree with), I think we need to make an assessment on 1) to what extent does the URS permit renewal and/or continued use of a previously suspended domain, and 2) to what extent is renewal and/or continued use of a previously suspended domain consistent with the intended purpose of the URS; and 3) to the extent it is inconsistent, whether any policy recommendations should be implemented to address the inconsistency.
Best regards,
Claudio