<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report ofDeletesTask Force
I am neither lawyer or physician, so leave the difficult stuff to
those of you who understand the law...
But on point 3.1.4
The intention was to try and avoid confusion, improve consumer
understanding. My first comment on this was:
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00058.html>
At 1:50 AM +0900 11/23/02, Adam Peake wrote:
>i./ Registrants need to be given clearer information about the
>renewal process at the time of registration.
>
>At the time of registration, it should be made clear that names are
>not bought outright, but must be renewed after a period of time. It
>should be made clear that if contact information given to the
>registrar changes, it must be updated or reminders about renewal may
>not be received and the name perhaps deleted/lost. Correspondence
>from the registrar rather than information on a website would be the
>most effective way to educate the registrant.
>
>ii./ Clarity in all correspondence about the renewals process is important.
>
>At a time when Internet users must to wade through a mailboxes full
>of spam, a not insignificant amount of which touts cheap domain name
>registrations, registrars should be careful to present renewal
>notices in a straight forward manner, uncluttered by excessive
>marketing information and other perhaps off-putting information.
>Plain language, on subject, should be the basis of renewal
>correspondence.
Perhaps 3.1.4 lost some of that as we tried to make sense of what I meant!
(Generally, I wonder if Task Force reports might benefit from the
addition of text explaining --if appropriate-- the intent of each
recommendation?)
As for "Concern D: Overlap with Whois Recommendations"
At 5:54 PM -0500 11/15/02, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
>Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy
>---------------------------------------------------------
>It was generally thought that there was potential duplication of effort on
>this issue with the Whois task force. Buchanan indicated that a liaison
>from the Whois task force should be participating in the deletes task force,
>and that the current chairs had been selected as interim liaisons.
>
>To avoid overlapping work effort with the Whois task force, it was generally
>agreed that the deletes task force should focus on how deletes are handled
>once the decision has been made to remove a domain, while the Whois task
>force should focus on the mechanism that triggers the renewal.
Above from the minutes of out Nov. 15 '02 call
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00030.html>, I
thought this was later agreed with the Whois task force? So clearly
the answer is to blame the other guys :-)
BTW, what's the practical difference between the two TF recommendations?
Thanks,
Adam
At 7:58 AM -0700 4/14/03, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:
>Now for a really small cc: line.
>
>I think a call before the NC meeting is an excellent suggestion. What
>do people think of tomorrow at our daylight-savings adjusted usual time
>(1300 UTC / 1400 London / 0900 East Coast USA / 0600 West Coast USA /
>2200 Tokyo) If tomorrow doesn't work, Wednesday?
>
>Jordyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jane Mutimear [mailto:jane.mutimear@twobirds.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:09 AM
> To: 'Bret Fausett'; nc-deletes@dnso.org
> Cc: Jordyn 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
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>Now for a really small cc: line.
>
>I think a call before the NC meeting is an excellent suggestion.
>What do people think of tomorrow at our daylight-savings adjusted
>usual time (1300 UTC / 1400 London / 0900 East Coast USA / 0600 West
>Coast USA / 2200 Tokyo) If tomorrow doesn't work, Wednesday?
>
>Jordyn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jane Mutimear [mailto:jane.mutimear@twobirds.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:09 AM
>To: 'Bret Fausett'; nc-deletes@dnso.org
>Cc: Jordyn 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>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>http://www.star.net.uk
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
--
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|