Ross Rader wrote: "Inappropriate is ripping off registrants to line your own pocket." Isn't the "internal transfer fulfilment" (or whatever one wants to call it) just that? The ICANN policy (as JB just pointed out) was quite clear in its intention that if a domain isn't renewed by a registrant, then the domain is to be deleted. The RGP period has also been contracted around. Many registrars have their registrants agree that the domain can be transferred immediately upon expiration with no "emulated" RGP (while others actually offer a longer fake RGP of more than 30 days). Many registrars already word the renewals as something like "We may, at our sole option, provide you with the opportunity to renew the domain post-expiry". So, if registrars remove the "right" for registrants to be able to renew their domains after expiration, and combine it with the agreement that the registrar can change the listed Registered Name Holder upon expiration, then the transfer out post-expiration becomes a moot point. I'm not in any way saying this is the right thing to do. I've just spent a little too much time recently actually reading the various Domain Registration Agreements that various registrars have in place. Forget Cujo - if you want scary reading, sit down and watch the rights of registrants being stripped away. Me, imho, I'd prefer to go back to having all domains drop at the Registry level, and Registrants being able to transfer out post-expiration. But the policies in place, combined with the never-ending ability to contract around the such policies, leaves me little choice but to face the reality that while policies may be changed to clarify ICANN's intention, it will just be offset by changes to Registration Agreements, and we'll see all Registered Name Holder info being changed on Expiration to something like: "Expired [Registrar-name] Domains Inc." with the Former Registrant being listed as a note somewhere in the postal address, if that.