[council] Deletes Task Force draft recommendations

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com>]

Hello all:

Prior to our call tomorrow, I wanted to share the draft recommendations 
from the Deletes Task Force in their current form.  These should 
already have been circulated to the various constituencies by their 
task force reps, but I wanted to make sure everyone has a chance to 
review them in conjunction with tomorrow's discussion.

Please keep in mind that these are draft recommendations and may still 
be subject to some refinement.  In the initial task force report, which 
I hope to have released soon, there will be considerably more 
explanatory text surrounding the recommendations.

I look forward to speaking with all of you tomorrow.

Jordyn

---
Issue 1: As indicated in the issues paper, the status quo presents an 
environment in which users may not always understand the deletion 
process applied to their domain name.  While recognizing the need for 
registrars to pursue their own business models, the task force 
recommends that certain baseline policies be adopted by all registrars. 
  Specifically:

1.  Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been 
processed by the end of the auto-renew grace period (generally 
forty-five days after the domain's initial expiration).  As a mechanism 
for enforcing this requirement, registries may elect to delete names 
for which an explicit renew command has not been received prior to the 
expiration of the grace period.

2.  Registrars should provide a summary of their deletion policy, as 
well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may have, at 
the time of registration.

3.  Registrars should provide their deletion and auto-renewal policies 
in a conspicuous place on their websites.

A special case exists for names that expire during the course of a UDRP 
dispute.  In order to prevent the name from lapsing and being 
re-allocated during the dispute, the task force proposes that the 
challenger in the UDRP dispute be provided with the option of paying 
for the renewal of the domain name in the event that the current 
registrant elects not to renew the domain name.  This policy does not 
give the challenger in the dispute any special rights, nor does it The 
policy is described in more detail as follows (it's a bit complicated 
right now; we're working on paring it down while still covering the 
edge cases):

1. In the event that a domain under UDRP dispute is likely to expire 
during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will 
notify the challenger of the impending expiration either at the time 
the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration 
of the domain.

2. In such an event, the challenger will have the option to pay for a 
one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's current prevailing rate 
for renewals.

3. The original registrant will have the option of paying for the 
domain name at any time up to the relevant registry's renewal grace 
period PLUS thirty days (which matches the redemption grace period), 
regardless of whether or not the challenger has paid for the domain's 
renewal.

3a. In the event that both the registrant and the challenger pay for 
the renewal, the name will be renewed on behalf of the original 
registrant in accordance with the registrar's usual policy, and any fee 
paid by the challenger will be refunded.  The order in which the 
payments are received shall not effect this provision.

4. In the event that only the challenger pays for the renewal of the 
domain name, beginning no later than the duration of the relevant 
registry's renewal grace period after the domain's expiration, the 
registar will:

4a. Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the 
result that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS.

4b. Modify the Whois entry for the domain name to indicate that the 
name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific 
ownership information for the Whois record.

4c. If the challenge is terminated prior to a verdict being rendered, 
but after the domain reaches this state, the domain will be deleted.

5. In the event that the verdict of the UDRP challenge is that the 
domain is to be transferred to the challenger, the registrar shall 
transfer the name in accordance with its regular process for such 
situations.

6. Notwithstanding #3 above, if the verdict of the UDRP challenge is 
that the domain is to be deleted, the registrar shall delete the name 
in accordance with the usual UDRP process.

7. In the event that the verdict of the UDRP challenge is that the 
existing
registration be sustained, AND the relevant registry's renewal grace 
period
has expired without the original registrant paying for a renewal, the 
domain name will be deleted.

7a. In the event that the verdict of the UDRP challenge is that the 
existing
registration be sustained, and the renewal grace period has not 
expired, the
domain name will be subject to the registrar's usual renewal and 
deletion
processes.

8. Provisions #6, #7 and #7a apply regardless of any payment for 
renewal by the challenger.  With the exception of provision #3a above, 
the challenger will not receive a refund for any renewal fees paid to 
the registrar.


Issue 2: Many of the problems raised within the issues paper are 
already under consideration by the Whois task force.  In order to avoid 
overlap between the two task forces, the Deletes Task force determined 
that:

1. The scope of the Whois Task Force is to determine under what 
circumstances a domain name should be deleted for reasons relating to 
the domain's Whois data.

2. The scope of the Deletes Task Force is to determine what happens to 
a domain name once it has been deleted for reasons relating to the 
domains' Whois data.

In most respects, a name deleted for reasons relating to inaccuracy of 
Whois data is treated identically to a name deleted for any other 
reason.  However, it is important to prevent registrants from using the 
Redemption Grace Period to simply re-instate names once they have been 
deleted, without providing accurate Whois information.  In order to 
prevent this, the task force recommends that registrars require that 
registrants of such names provide new, verified Whois information.  
This new data should be provided as part of the documentation to the 
registry in conjunction with the request for the name's redemption.



Issue 3: The task force believes that the recently adopted Redemption 
Grace Period not only provides registrants with crucial protection in 
the event of inadvertent deletion or misunderstanding of deletion 
policy, but also provides significant transparency into the deletion 
process as lists of names to be purged from the registry's system are 
published on a regular basis.  The task force feels that the Redemption 
Grace Period provides an adequate level of consistency and transparency 
in terms of registry deletion policy, and does not recommend any other 
specific steps be adopted at this time.


Issue 4: The task force has found that this issue is primarily 
technical in nature.  Although both the RRP and EPP protocols lack an 
"undo" function that would allow for the direct reversal of a renewal 
without deleting these domains, registries generally have 
administrative procedures in place that allow for such transactions to 
be reversed out-of-band.  As a result, the task force sees no need to 
take action on this issue.

In the event that registries or registrars desire this capability to be 
added to the EPP protocol, the task force believes that these changes 
are best pursued through technical fora such as the IETF.