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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, at 15:59 [=GMT+0100], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but the grace period for responding to a UDRP complaint is way
shorter than that for domain renewals. If your email doesn't work (and
since a fax is not always in the whois info...) you are lost. Not
responding nearly always means losing the domain. I really think these are
similar situations.

> >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!

We agree then: ICANN must show first that there is more than 'anecdotal
evidence'. Making chances based on anecdotal evidence is _always_ a
mistake.

> >> 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:

Sure, but why does this mean that we cannot approach the problem in a
fundamental way? I don't think you show why that is the case.

> -- 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

The proposal for a different form of a grace period doesn't chance this,
it only postpones the 'grabbing', and perhaps reduces the number of
expiring domains slightly. Most of the domains that drop now, seem to come
from frustrated 'speculators', who were unable to sell them. (Thus it
says in several recent reports about domain name registrations. No, I have
no hard evidence either :-)

> -- 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".

Indeed. Therefore a complete solution, not patchwork. The more patchwork,
the more chances for abuse.

> -- 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.

The solution to this simple: Hide those privacy sensitive data, and make
them only available to those who can show they have a legitamate use of
them, e.g. IP lawyers, or 'the law'. Here again, a fundamental solution is
required. Not patchwork.

> 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.

I do not agree. I for one will oppose patchwork solutions. Also it takes
much more of our time to do this in several rounds. It is most 'natural'
to solve the expiring/deletion problem in ONE go. We are talking about ONE
thing, seen from two perspectives.

> 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!).

Tactics I leave to you :-) This _is_, however, a matter for ICANN. It has
now, shortly before Accra, been put up by staff (I guess). I do not see
why it would be worse if staff made a more complete proposal, including
rules for deletions...

--
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