Re: [nc-deletes] Comments and impact statement

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

Hi Jane:

On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 04:08  PM, Jane Mutimear wrote:

> Comments on draft (and apologies if some of these have already been 
> made - although I have tried to catch up):
>
> Intro:   delete additional "more critical" in first sentence
>
> 2.1;  3rd sentence - something's gone wrong - there are two many words 
> before the first comma:  "This automatic In current practice,"

Good catches.  Thanks.

> 2.3  We have Add Grace Period in caps but haven't mentioned it before 
> now (in fact we explain what it is in 2.4).  We should explain the 
> term first time we use it and then define it.  We should do the same 
> with Renew Grace Period which we use for the first time here.  If we 
> do this it might make our proposals (i) to (iv) easier to follow. 

I think this echoes Dr. Lisse's suggestion for a glossary.  Anyone want 
to volunteer to make one?

Do we feel like we need a glossary before we publish our draft report?

> 3.1.1 - I like Tim's suggestion (which was in his impact statement) to 
> replace the first sentence here as it makes it clearer.

I added 3.1.2 to try and take Tim's suggestion into consideration.  I'm 
a little leery of language requiring explicit renewal, because it seems 
reasonable that some registrars might have contracts with their 
registrants that allow for automatic renewal.  In fact, this might be 
desirable for many registrants as opposed to an affirmative requirement 
to explicitly renew each year.

> 3.2.3  Why did you fiddle with my wording?  The reason I liked my more 
> verbose wording was because it made it clear that if the complainant 
> doesn't cough up the renewal fee before the domain name lapses, the 
> registrant just gets the normal grace period.  Now you have to deduce 
> this.  I won't have a tantrum about this though.

Sorry about that.  I think I've made this clearer in the next draft.

> 3.2.5.3 - add "name" after domain in second line (and yes, I missed 
> this on my version)
>
> 3.2.7  I'm with John on this one - it confuses me - it makes me think 
> that some of what went before does impact on the outcome of a UDRP 
> decision.  Do we need it?

Okay, you guys have convinced me.  The second sentence has been deleted.

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Draft Impact Statement of the Intellectual Property Constituency on 
> the report of the Deletes taskforce
>
>
> ISSUE 1: determine whether a uniform delete process by gtld registrars 
> following expiry is desirable, and if so, recommend an appropriate 
> process.
>
> TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: 
>
> 1.      Domain names not explicitly renewed must be deleted by the end 
> of the registrar's grace period.
>
> IMPACT ON IPC: This will give intellectual property owners more 
> certainty in relation to the treatment of their own and other's domain 
> names when a renewal fee is not paid and is welcomed.
>
> 2.      Deletion/Renewal policies to be made clear at date of 
> registration and to be in a prominent place on the web site
>
> IMPACT ON IPC:  The IPC approves of registrants being put on notice as 
> to the registrar's particular deletes policy and also support the 
> requirement that the policy be made conspicuous on the website of each 
> registrar, in order that registrants who inadvertently permit their 
> domain names to lapse can easily locate the rules which apply in order 
> to evaluate the status of their domain name.
>
> 3.      Domain names the subject of UDRP actions when lapsing will be 
> capable of being renewed by the complainant to the UDRP action
>
> IMPACT ON IPC:  although it is relatively rare that domain names lapse 
> during a UDRP complaint, this has happened on a number of occasions.  
> In addition, a potential complainant under the current system may wait 
> to bring its complaint until it knows whether or not a domain has been 
> renewed, which may result in unnecessary delay.  This proposal gives 
> certainty to trade mark owners wishing to bring UDRP complaints 
> against domain names which are due to expire relatively shortly, so as 
> to enable them to avoid the scenario of a decision being rendered in 
> their favour in relation to a domain name which is now owned by 
> another party.
>
> ISSUE 2:  determine whether a uniform delete process by gtld 
> registrars following a failure of a registrant to provide accurate 
> WHOIS information upon request is desirable, and if so, recommend an 
> appropriate process.
>
> TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION:
>
> 1.      Domain names deleted for false WHOIS data will need to have 
> their WHOIS data verified before being able to take advantage of the 
> Redemption Grace Period. 
>
> IMPACT ON IPC:  it is important to intellectual property rights owners 
> that registrants of domain names who have their domain name cancelled 
> because of false WHOIS data are not able to simply register them with 
> the same or similarly false date via the RGP.  Therefore, the IPC 
> welcomes the proposals.
>
>
> Speak to everyone tomorrow
>
> Jane
>
>