[nc-deletes] Registrar statement text

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> If anyone is able to convert Ms. Mutimear's file into a non-proprietary
> format, I would be greatly appreciative.

I suppose you'll need this one too.

-------

Registrar Constituency Initial Statement on Deletes Issues

WHEREAS Recent policy development activity in relation to studying transfers
in the transfers task force, providing advice on the VeriSign Wait List
Service proposal, and in considering the redemption grace period proposal
has highlighted a range of issues associated with current delete processes
within the gTLDs;

WHEREAS these issues have been identified as being the following;
  Issue 1: Uniform deletes practice after domain name expiry by registrars;
  Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy;
  Issue 3: Registry delete process;
  Issue 4: Reversal of renewal transactions;

WHEREAS At the Names Council meeting on 3 Oct 2002, it was decided to form a
task force to look at these issues;

WHEREAS The Deletes Task Force has requested the Registrar Constituency to
submit a formal statement of position on these issues.

Therefore, may the Deletes Task Force find the Registrar Constituency's
position on each issue as follows:


Issue 1: Uniform deletes practice after domain name expiry by registrars

Note: No formal position has yet been adopted. However, there has been no
opposition voiced to the following principles.

a. Domain names not explicitly renewed MUST be deleted by the end of the
grace period, at which time it enters the Redemption Grace Period. A
possible implementation would be to require the registries to auto-delete
names that have not been renewed or deleted within the grace period. This
would ensure consistency.

b. Registrars may decide how they will deal with deletes during the grace
period but MUST post their deletes policy on their site. This may be done as
part of their registration agreement.

c. The issue of reselling names during the grace period may be outside the
scope of the Task Force, except where such practices may conflict with 1.a.
It may be appropriate to simply indicate that in all cases 1.a. must apply
unless the Registrantıs wishes are different (i.e. the Registrant wishes to
resell, etc.).

d. Extending the 5-day grace period for Adds is outside the scope of the
Task Force.

However, a question was raised regarding names deleted after the 5-day grace
period. Is it within the scope of the Task Force to consider allowing
refunds to the registrar for the unused portion of the registration?

e. The issue of expiring names that are the subject of a UDRP dispute does
not appear to be a pervasive problem.

The UDRP requires the name to be locked and the status quo maintained. If
the Task Force decides to pursue this issue, and registrars are not allowed
to delete these names upon expiry, perhaps the registration term could be
paid for by the complainant pending resolution. No down side for registrars.
However, what information would appear in the Whois does need to be
addressed.


Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy;

Note: No formal position has yet been adopted. However, there has been no
opposition voiced to the following principles.

a. Given that this issue overlaps with the work of the Whois Task Force,
this Task Force should deal only with what happens AFTER a decision has been
made to delete the name. This issue needs further detail before any further
position can be considered.

b. Once a domain name has been deleted for inaccurate data, the Redemption
Grace Period (RGP) as currently defined should apply, with the exception
that evidence that the data had been corrected must be submitted in addition
to any other required documentation when the RESTORE is requested.
 

Issue 3: Registry delete process;

Note: No formal position has yet been adopted. However, there has been no
opposition voiced to the following principles.

a. The RGP provides the basis for a solution to a uniform deletes policy
among registries. A possible implementation would be as follows:

 i. If the domain is within an Add Grace Period when a delete is issued,
then it will be deleted immediately. If the domain is within an Add Grace
Period and a Renew Grace Period (i.e. it is explicitly renewed within the
Add Grace Period), then it will be deleted immediately.

 ii. If a domain name is deleted within any other Grace Period, the
registrar will receive an immediate credit and the domain name will be
immediately placed in the Redemption Grace Period.

 iii. If the domain is deleted outside of any Grace Period, a successful
delete request should always place the domain name in the Redemption Grace
Period. 

 iv. Registries must implement the Redemption Grace Period as defined in the
Technical Steering Group's proposal of June 7, 2002 found at:
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm

b. There is no current consensus on best practice for registry reallocation
of deleted names. Several proposals were put forward for an informal poll on
October 19, 2001. Those proposals and the results of the poll can be found
at http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/.


Issue 4: Reversal of renewal transactions;

Note: No formal position has yet been adopted. However, there has been no
opposition voiced to the following principles.

a. This issue does not appear to be a pervasive problem and does not need to
be addressed by the Task Force.