Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Marc!

At 16.02.2002 12:11, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>That is why I mentioned the extra services: "snail mail or telephone
>notificiation".
>
>By the way, I would hope that everyone will be equally worried that domain
>name owners cannot be contacted within the review of the UDRP.

Indeed, but at least email, fax and snail mail 
notification is required for the UDRP. It is 
only optional (and probably happens in few
cases) as far as domain deletions are concerned.

>Those who want to change something have to show that it makes sense. You
>cannot implement something new, saying that if it isn't necessary it won't
>hurt either...

Indeed, but obviously not all domain holders have
exactly the same problems. Should data from ICANN
(Internic registrar reports) and registrars show
that unintended domain deletions indeed happen
(and are not extraordinarily rare), it is necessary 
to safeguard registrants' interests more strictly. 
And as a bonus, I think it really won't hurt either!

>> But then again, to err is human --
>> which is why I appreciate adding a bit of forgiveness
>> to the domain deletion process! :)
>
>Fine with me in principle, but without a fee on the _registry_ level. But
>could we then tackle at the same time the problem of expired domains that
>are not deleted, not even after a year?  Not only speculators are looking
>at those names. Also people, companies, organizations that want to use
>them for web, mail etc. Speculators are not the only people hoarding
>domains. See e.g. number9.org.

Agree.

>The whole deletion process is somewhat of a mess. Part solutions to
>problems, like this proposal and VeriSign's waiting list, will only make
>it worse. I think it is good that ICANN (and not VeriSign) tackles the
>whole problem.

If we were to start from scratch, I'm sure we could
develop a lot of clever approaches to the deletion
process instead of the current "somewhat of a mess".
Unfortunately, the current situation has a historical
background:
-- Individuals and companies try to make a living 
from getting deleted domains and reselling them
-- Companies make a living from delivering tools and
registry access to them
-- The way the domains are deleted leads to a
technical competition, a "brute force" approach
with unequal chances of registering a deleted domain
-- Registrars have an interest in informing the
domain holder about an upcoming deletion. This may
become different if they can make more money by 
not giving it back to the pool or if they have
significant stakes in the "dropping names industry".
-- Registrants have an interest in current and 
accurate data in the Whois database so that they 
can be warned before a deletion. This may become 
different if the Whois database is abused and e.g. 
registrants stop giving their correct phone and fax 
number for privacy reasons.

I'm afraid it is going to be (too?) difficult to come 
to a consensus on a total all-in-one redesign. Instead,
I think we will have to work on partial solutions
for domain deletions (including notice and hoarding), 
domain transfers between registrars and re-registrations 
of deleted domains. VeriSign is free to make a proposal
and try to get community consensus (it doesn't look
to me as if they have succeeded yet...); I don't
think a proposal has a greater chance if it comes
from ICANN staff. Anyone is free to propose such a
new approach, and I think the GA list is probably
one of the best places to gather reactions (beware
of the sharks!).

Best regards,
/// Alexander


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html