Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report ofDeletesTask Force

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> If reasonable and limited flexibility is not build into the policy...

Remember though that the uniform rule was suggested by the task force in
order to stop what was believed to be an abusive/unfair registrar practice.
The question is how to provide limited flexibility for a registrar without
(a) reopening the possibility of abuse; and/or (b) saddling ICANN Staff with
an ambiguous or impossible to administer enforcement burden.

While I'm still reviewing the Staff report, I think the Staff
recommendations can be easily reconciled with our report in at least three
places.

First, I don't believe it was our intent to require a register to delete a
domain name when the name was the subject of an administrative or legal
proceeding and/or when the deletion would be in violation of law or an
applicable court order. I think we can add language to make that clear, and
such a carve-out would be relatively easy for ICANN to enforce.

Second, I also don't believe it was our intention to preclude a registrar
from offering domain name registrations for free. Our real point was that a
registrant should affirmatively indicate an intent to renew the registration
beyond the previously agreed term. Most often, that intent is expressed by
payment for a new term, but I see no reason why a registrar couldn't offer
the renewal for free so long as the registrant takes some positive step to
express agreement with that course of action. Rephrasing some of the
paragraphs to replace payment-related words and phrases with things like
"affirmative intention to renew" might solve this problem.

Finally, I don't believe we had intended to bind a registrar to the deletion
policy it had posted on its web site for the entire term of its
registrations. My assumption is that we simply wanted registrars to post
their then current deletion policy, with an acknowledgment that such a
policy might be updated or revised in the future. We can easily clarify
that.

Those are three clarifications that I think are consistent with our original
thinking and that a quick and non-controversial re-draft could probably
resolve. 

Perhaps we should schedule a quick conference call in advance of the NC
meeting to discuss the Staff report.

    -- Bret

P.S. I've trimmed the cc:s. If you think this message should go to a broader
group though, feel free to forward it as you think appropriate.