Re: [nc-deletes] Revised report

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@Registrypro.com>]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10:53  AM, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. 
wrote:

> These are some brief comments on the draft.  In several places, forms 
> of the
> verb "to own" are used in connection with registration of a domain 
> name (i.e.
> "own", "ownership", "owner", etc.).  Whether anyone "owns" a domain 
> name is
> itself a contentious issue.  Language such as "registrant", 
> "register", and
> "registration" is significantly less contentious.

This is a good point.

> --in such manner as is to be specified in the pending recommendations 
> of the
> WHOIS task force.--

I want to be more be more broad here--the verification should be 
according to current consensus policy, regardless of whether that is 
the product of the WHOIS task force, the current "policy", the future 
workproduct of an as-yet-unknown task force, or whatever.

> "The registrar should then provide a statement"
>
> [to whom?]

I think this is implicit with the rest of the sentence, since the 
request for redemption is made to the registry.

> [Comment: It is one thing for the registrar to say the data has been
> "verified" in some absolute sense, and another thing for the registrar 
> to say
> that the rules for verification were followed.  The recommendation 
> should be
> clear that "verified" is meant in the latter sense, to avoid registrar
> liability for fraudulently "verified" data.]

This is fine.  I'll try to clarify this.

> "There may also be alternative approaches to the reallocation process 
> that
> are fairer, less resource-intensive, or both, than the current 
> reallocation
> mechanism."
>
> [There is no system of assigning a globally-unique resource to a 
> single party
> that is going to be considered "fair" by every other party who is 
> denied the
> resource.  Nobody ever proposed "first-come first-served" as "fair" in 
> some
> absolute sense, but it has always been considered "less unfair" than
> alternatives.  Regardless of what system one develops, there will 
> always be
> those who become more skillful than others in using that system.
> Re-allocation is not within the scope of this task force, and that is
> probably sufficient.  An extended discussion of what is "fair" is 
> generally
> unproductive, and the word should be avoided.]

This is why the sentence reads "may be fairer"; certainly some level of 
fairness should be a requirement for any policy.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that when the registry's system is 
abused to the point that certain registrars don't have access to it, 
that the process is not fair.  Further, if the only issue reallocation 
processes attempted to address were is the allocation of registry 
resources, this would be purely a registry issue and not be a very good 
subject for this task force or any ICANN consensus policy.


> "3.2.7 In all other cases, the registrar shall comply with the outcome 
> of the
> UDRP dispute in accordance with its regular policies.  No provision of 
> this
> policy should be taken to override the decision in the UDRP dispute."
>
> [I'm not sure what the last sentence means.  This "policy" requires 
> minor
> adjustment to the portion of the RAA incorporating the UDRP]
>

The intent is to indicate that provisions 3.2.3 through 3.2.5 are not 
read as overriding the decision of the panel.  For example, if the 
registrant pays for the renewal, but then the decision of the panel is 
to transfer the name, the name is still transfered.  Similarly, if a 
deletion is ordered, the fact that either or both party has paid does 
not prevent the names' deletion.

Jordyn