Rob,
I think you make a very point. I’ve
been rethinking this whole idea myself.
Another issue would be how long of a
period after the Complainant recovers it do we allow the registrant to still recover
it. Up to day 75 after the original expiry? The Registrars will need to track
that.
And if the Complainant loses and the
domain is deleted again, it will enter another RGP cycle. Who, if anyone, will
be able to recover the name at that point?
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hall
[mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:00
AM
To: Tim Ruiz;
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: john@johnberryhill.com;
fausett@lextext.com; jane.mutimear@twobirds.com; del-com@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [del-com] Second
draft of deletes implementation report
I have a concern about
3.2.1 below.
Does this mean we are not
allowing the Registrant to exercise their rights to recover the domain during
the RGP ? I would think that the Complaintant should only be able
to recover the domain from RGP near the END of the RGP (ie: after the rights of
the Registrant have basically expired). Alternately, if the Complaintant
should exercise the recovery from RGP, and subsequent to that the Registrant
wants to recover it, I believe the domain should NOT be placed on Hold
automatically, should be placed in the Registrants name again, and should be in
the same status and information that it was when it was deleted.
There are Registrars,
such as ourselves, that are now deleting names a day after
expiry. I would hate to see a complaintant game the system by applying
for a recovery on the first day, and basically taking away the rights of the
Registrant to continue to use the domain during the complaint period.
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-del-com@dnso.org
[mailto:owner-del-com@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Tim
Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:00
AM
To: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: john@johnberryhill.com;
fausett@lextext.com; jane.mutimear@twobirds.com; del-com@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [del-com] Second
draft of deletes implementation report
3.1.4
I would still prefer this paragraph be deleted. However, it would also work if
it were revised as follows, or something similar:
"A
registrar must, at a minimum, make the same effort to inform a registrant of
any material changes to the deletion policy during the period of the domain
name licence as it would to inform a registrant of other material changes to
the domain name licence."
3.2.1
The current Redemption Grace Period policy already states:
"Registrars
may only RESTORE Registered Names in order to correct unintentional deletions
caused by registrant, registrar, or registry mistake (or as required by
operation of the UDRP or other applicable dispute resolution policy in order to
implement a court, arbitral tribunal or Administrative Panel decision)..."
It
may be a minor point but we should probably recognize the above to illustrate
that this recommendation is in line with existing policy:
"In
the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is deleted, a complainant
in the UDRP dispute will have the option to restore the name, as provided for
in current Redemption Grace Period policy, under the same commercial terms as
the registrant. If the complainant restores the name, the name will be
placed in Registrar HOLD and Registrar LOCK status, The WHOIS contact
information for the registrant will be removed, and the WHOIS entry will
indicate that the name is subject to dispute. If the complaint is
terminated or the UDRP dispute finds against the complainant, the name will be
deleted within 45 days."
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2003 10:08 pm
To: del-com@dnso.org
Cc: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>,
"Bret
Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>, jane.mutimear@twobirds.com
Hello All,
See attached a revised draft of the deletes implementation report
following the teleconference.
I have highlighted major changes in yellow.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin