RE: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of Deletes Task Force

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com>]

Title: RE: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force

Adding in a short timeframe for an Implementation committee could be a solution here, and the staff comments/analysis should be taken into account.  This Implementation Committee should come before final approval by the Council in my view. ... I thought such a process had been added in as a standing part of process... if not, perhaps it could be for this particular report. Since Deletes too, isn't fully within the new PDP... :-)

 

I'll make only one other comment. It was originally a little hard for the other two TFs [including me as chair/co-chair] to think that they needed an Implementation Committee report. Both were exceptionally well received by the TF's when they were completed, and both added great value to the work of the other two TFs. You  might note that both TF's thanked the IC for their contribution and made modifications in their report to take their recommendations into account.

 

In my view, the goal at Council should be to ensure that policy is fully examined for implementation issues and unintended consequences before voting.   I'm anxious to get to "final" on this policy myself, since, again, WHOIS and Transfers TF policy recommendations assumed there would be a uniform deletions policy.

 

By the way, as I recall the process, staff comments in this case would have to come after the final report was posted, because there was really no other apparent way to get them incorporated... need to be based on final report, etc. But, my recommendation would be that the Council chair appoint an implementation committee, to work with staff, and provide a report to the TF.  Then the report should come to Council for vote.

It would be good to have the report on the agenda for Council for discussion purposes this week, though.

 

Regards, Marilyn Cade

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:15 AM
To: 'Jane Mutimear'; 'Bret Fausett'; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Cc: 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'; 'Louis Touton'; 'Dan Halloran'; 'Dr Eberhard W. Lisse'; 'Gomes, Chuck'
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force

Is the process that consensus policy is adopted straight from the Task Force report? For both the Whois TF and Transfer TF reports an implementation committee was formed. Their report was added to the process and I was under the impression that the resulting policy would be drafted based on that complete picture.

 

If that is to be the process followed here with the Deletes TF report, then I don’t believe there needs to be anything amended. However, the implantation committee would take Louis’ comments into consideration, especially since they unfortunately came after the final report was posted.

 

Tim

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Jane Mutimear
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:09 AM
To: 'Bret Fausett'; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Cc: Jordyn A. Buchanan; Louis Touton; Dan Halloran; 'Dr Eberhard W. Lisse'; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force

 

I agree with Bret's comments and would be able to make a conference call this week to discuss further.

Jane

-----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
Sent: 13 April 2003 18:41
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Cc: Jordyn A. Buchanan; Louis Touton; Dan Halloran; 'Dr Eberhard W. Lisse'; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force

 

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.

________________________________________________________________________
BIRD & BIRD
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only.
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged.
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail.
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom.
A full list of partners is available on request.
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________