…a very “good” point.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-del-com@dnso.org
[mailto:owner-del-com@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Tim
Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:24
AM
To: 'Rob Hall';
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
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