[council] GA summary 2002-07

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related) 
discussions and news during the 7th (and the beginning of the 8th) 
week of 2002.  GA list archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.  Please 
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

			"I have made this letter longer than usual 
			because I lack the time to make it shorter." 
						-- Blaise Pascal
		 



				Votes

There were no ongoing General Assembly votes during the time 
covered.


			  Call for Sponsors

Names Council chairman Philip Shepard published a call for sponsors 
for the webcasting of DNSO meetings in Ghana. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00970.html>



				Topics

(i) Lending of Registry Access.  Alexander Svensson forwarded an 
advisory from ICANN on inappropriate lending of registry access. 
This advisory elaborates on some obligations registrars have under 
the agreement.  The advisory points out that "at least one registrar
access-lending scheme currently in operation raises significant 
issues under these provisions of the RAA."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00954.html>

(ii) Read-only access to the names council list.  Danny Younger 
asked what happened about Alexander's January 8 request for 
read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list.  In a reply, the 
DNSO secretariat pointed out that such access "is already done 
through a transparent access to archives".  In a follow-up, 
Alexander pointed out that his request was about e-mail access, 
_not_ web access. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00964.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00966.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00979.html>.

(iii) Whois task force.  Danny Younger asked for public access to 
the raw survey data. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00980.html>

(iv) Redemption grace period.  Ross Rader posted a link to a 
discussion paper from ICANN, on "Redemption Grace Periods for 
Deleted Names." In that paper, a solution for the problem of 
unintentional domain registration deletions is suggested: Any 
"delete" of a domain name results in a 30-day grace period, during 
which the domain name will be in registry-hold mode and removed from 
the zone file, yielding the domain unresolvable, so registrants 
notice that they have a problem. During that grace period, 
"registrants could redeem their registrations through registrars." 
<http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm>

William Walsh replied that "it should be stated that the registrar 
can only redeem the registration for the original registrant."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00982.html>

Harold Whiting suggested that there should be uniformity with 
respect to the current registrar-dependent "grace period": "If all 
registrars are mandated to follow the same procedure during the 45 
day window and delete names uniformly, we solve not only the 
'mistakes' but also the hoarding issue." According to him, the 
proposal adds "another layer of opportunity to manipulate the
system."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00985.html>

Abel Wisman elaborates on the point that redemptions would lead to 
registrants paying "renewal fees, plus a service charge, to the 
registry operator." He sees a connection to the WLS proposal, which 
would create an additional demand for such a redemption grace 
period.  William Walsh followed up on this message to suggest that 
the service charge be removed from the proposal.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00988.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00996.html>.

Genie Livingston points out that, in Verisign's answers to questions 
about WLS (see below), there is indeed a pointer to the redemption 
grace proposal: According to their Q&A document, Verisign had 
suggested a 15-day registry hold period.  "In the revised WLS 
proposal, this provision was removed because ICANN is going to take 
the lead in the process that hopefully will lead to such a 
procedure." If ICANN process on this takes longer than 
implementation of WLS, Verisign "would be willing to consider 
implementing an interim procedure to provide for this need."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01004.html>

Don Brown says that he is in favor of the redemption grace period 
document, with some modifications: The suggested grace period 
"should be a 'minimum' period for the domain name to be on-hold"; 
the grace period should be longer when considering the effect of DNS 
cache expiration; the domain should be on hold the day following 
expiration; on-hold status should be reflected in whois information; 
the grace period should not be conditioned upon payment of a fee to 
Verisign registry by registrars; pricing for the service fee is to 
be based on Verisign's cost; only the original registrant should be 
permitted to redeem a domain; there should be a policy to prevent 
hoarding; there should be a fine or other monetary penalty for 
infractions.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00990.html>

Marc Schneiders pointed out that some registrars he has checked have 
an "auto-renew" option, which, he says, fully takes care of the 
problem discussed in the ICANN document.  He also asks for facts and 
figures to back up the "anecdotal evidence" which "indicates that a 
significant portion of the demand for registration of deleted 
domains involves domains that the former registrant did not intend 
to have deleted." (Quote from the ICANN document.)
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00994.html>

Alexander Svensson points out that "e.g., register.com's service 
called SafeRenew is simply an attempt to charge the credit card the 
renewal fee" - an attempt which would of course be subject to the 
possibility of failure.  Alexander also quotes a message from Dave 
Crocker to the ncdnhc-discuss list where Dave estimates the core 
costs for domain registration to be $0.5 - $2.  As Alexander says, 
"the late renewal fee should definitely be less." Also, "the only 
ones negatively affected are companies and individuals trying to 
make a business out of the current situation where at least some 
domains are deleted without the owner realizing it." 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01005.html>, 
<http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-February/001437.html>.

Elisabeth Porteneuve suggests that we learn from other than domain 
name services.  As an example, she quotes public services in France,
where suppliers are allowed to charge subscribers' bank account 
periodically.  (BTW, it works similarly in Germany.)  Elisabeth 
suggests that "a 'long term option' based on a kind of automatic 
periodical payment could be added to registrant's choice."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01032.html>

(v) Verisign responses to questions received regarding the revised 
WLS proposal.  Verisign posted their response to the revised WLS 
proposal as a 25-page PDF document. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00992.html>, 
<http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf>.

In follow-up messages, Harold Whiting and William Walsh both agree 
that the paper "is an excellent exercise in answering by not 
answering." (William's wording.) 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00995.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00997.html>.

Genie Livingstone points out that the WLS proposal does not bring 
any solution to the problem of deleted domain hoarding at 
registrars.  Unless this is resolved first, Genie finds WLS 
unacceptable "in any shape or form."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01019.html>

Finally, Chuck Gomes announced that, responding to a request by the 
registrars' constituency, Verisign is extending the deadline for 
comments on the proposal to 7 March 2002.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01056.html>

(vi) Structure; At Large Membership.  Danny Younger quoted the idea 
"to involve ISPs in support of the At-Large membership," and 
elaborates on some details of it.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00993.html>

Danny also pointed out that Philip Sheppard has published v6 of the 
structure task force report.  Danny considers that report "garbage."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01006.html>

In the subsequent discussion, Chuck Gomes of Verisign writes: 
"Regardless of whether you like Danny's choice of words or not, it 
appears to me that what he is saying is probably quite accurate, at 
least with regard to the fact the report is primarily one prepared 
by Philip.  I know for a fact that the gTLD Registry Constituency 
submitted fairly significant comments to the TF only to be largely 
ignored." <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01029.html>

In a different message, Danny points out that he believes that the 
task force's chair (Philip) demonstrates business constituency bias, 
and asks for Philip to be replaced. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01037.html>

On the other hand, Philip claims that the current draft reflects 
input from all constituencies. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01039.html>

To this, Chuck objects that "it certainly does not contain input 
provided by the gTLD registry constituency."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01041.html>

(vii) A somewhat different approach to ICANN structure. A message 
 from ICANN director Andy Müller-Maguhn made it to the GA list 
through several forwarding layers.  According to Andy, Joe Sims was 
in Brussels today for some closed door meeting with the European 
Commission, where he presented plans for a complete restructuring of 
the ICANN board, without an at large participation, and with "parts 
of the DNSO." Apparently, Andy was not able to get hold of any 
details. <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01055.html>


-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/