[registrars] RC Deletes Position Paper
On October 3, 2002 the Names Council decided to
form a task force to look at deletes issues.
The discussion paper on deletes that was posted on
19 Sept 2002 identified four primary issues:
- uniform delete practice after domain name expiry
by registrars
- Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy - Registry delete process - Deletion required to Reverse renewal transactions Each issue
is restated below from
the paper itself and followed
with my own comments on a
proposed position. The latter of course is what we need to discuss and refine
into a draft position paper that reflects the
view of the RC as a whole and be can be voted on
here.
With your
timely feedback on these issues we should be able to put together a draft
position paper for your review by EOB Thursday the 14th. I suspect that the
draft will need to be tweaked before an actual vote. My goal would be that are
we in a position to vote by Monday or Tuesday next
week.
Tim
Ruiz
Go Daddy
Software, Inc.
Issue 1: Uniform delete practice after domain name
expiry by registrars
======================================================================== The ICANN Registrar Accreditation agreement
(http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm) contains the following clause: "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to
Registered Name
Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration. In the event that ICANN adopts a specification or policy concerning procedures for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall abide by that specification or policy." The above clause leaves open a deadline for
deleting a name (and hence
making it available for registration by others) after a domain name is not renewed. For the com/net/org registry, the registry operator
auto-renews domain
names at the expiry date of a domain. There is then a 45 day grace period following the expiry date, when a registrar may delete a name, and be credited for the renewal fee. Most registrars tend to explicitly delete names before the end of the 45 day period, although some do not, and often names are retained within the registry for an indeterminate period of time for various reasons. Sometimes names are withheld from the market for periods beyond a few months. Lack of consistent practice in this area may,
amongst other things,
cause substantial potential confusion among registrants. "2.3 Auto-Renew Grace Period
The Auto-Renew Grace Period is a specified number
of calendar days
following an auto-renewal. An auto-renewal occurs if a domain name registration is not renewed by the expiration date; in this circumstance the registration will be automatically renewed by the system the first day after the expiration date. The current value of the Auto-Renew Grace Period is 45 calendar days." The .biz and .info agreements have similar
provisions.
In contrast the .name agreement
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appc-5-02jul01.htm) states: "The .name Registry Operator does not support an
Auto-Renew Grace
Period. Upon the expiration of the term of a domain name registration or SLD E-mail address registration, the registration is cancelled unless its term has been explicitly extended by the sponsoring registrar." Some registrars choose to undelegate a domain name
(ie remove it from
the zonefile) so that a registrants email and web services may be suspended. This often assists in contacting a registrant that has failed to renew a domain name. Other registrars may delete the name without further warning if the name is not renewed. Some registrars choose not to delete a name even if
it has not been
renewed, if there is a dispute (for example UDRP) process underway. There may be other circumstances where a registrar may not want to delete the domain name after expiry, even though the renewal has not been paid. The end result of the above situation is consumers
do not have a
consistent environment for the process of deleting a name. This applies to consumers that have a domain name that is expired (they have no idea how long they have to attempt to renew the name before it is deleted), and those consumers that desire an existing domain name that is no longer in use (they have no idea when the name may become available). Lack of consistent practice in these areas may,
amongst other things,
cause substantial confusion among registrants. A possible policy action is to consider a uniform
delete process amongst
gtld registries and registrars. MY COMMENTS ON ISSUE
1:
======================= First, GNR has decided to implement auto-renewals
with a 45-day grace period.
Second, VeriSign will be implementing the
Redemption Grace Period in the Q1 2003.
I believe most of this issue will be resolved with
the above implementations. It leaves only the idea of a consistent delete policy
within the 45 day window. However, in the
interest of competition and to allow for various business models, I do not
believe the RC should promote or support a set
policy as to how or when deletes for non-renewals are performed within the
auto-renew grace period.
There are some basic principals I believe we could
support: 1) domains not renewed by the registrant during the 45 grace period
MUST be deleted no later than day 45, 2) a
registrar must have a consistent policy that is clearly stated on their website
(within their Registration Agreement, for
example) as to when and how domains are deleted during the 45 grace period, and
3) Registies MUST implement the Redemption Grace
Period.
The policies defined under 2) may differ between
registrar, but will be consistent in that non-renewed domains are deleted no
later than day 45, and whenever a domain is
deleted within that period the Redemption Grace Period will apply.
Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS
accuracy
========================================================= The ICANN Registrars Accreditation
agreement
(http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm) requires registrars to maintain the accuracy of WHOIS information, and to require a registrant to update inaccurate information. Note clause 3.7.7.2 states: "3.7.7.2 A Registered Name Holder's willful
provision of inaccurate or
unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the Registered Name Holder's registration shall constitute a material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration." Recent pressure on registrars to comply with the
clause above in
response to complaints about the accuracy of WHOIS data, may have the unintended consequence that it could be exploited by those that want to obtain a domain name from a current registrant. The introduction of the proposed Wait List Service may make this a more attractive option. Given that registrars often have trouble contacting
registrants at the
time of domain name renewal due to a registrant not maintaining up-to-date contact information, the 15 day period may be inadequate and out of proportion to typical 45 day grace periods available during the renewal process following expiry. A possible policy action is to review steps that
should be taken by a
registrar to contact a registrant that has not maintained accurate contact information, which may include a period where the name is first undelegated before it is deleted, and may include a delete period that corresponds to grace periods allowed in issue (1) above. MY COMMENTS ON ISSUE
2:
======================= This is currently being discussed as part of the Whoid Task Force. I would stronly suggest that we first attempt to keep it a part of that work already in progress. If that is not possible, then I recommend:
1) When a report of inaccurate data is received from ICANN a 30 day clock starts ticking. 2) If during that period the registrar is not able to resolve the issue or contact the registrant, then the domain name is put on HOLD, which will remove it from the zone. Another 30 day clock starts ticking. Not sure about this step:
3) If the registrant still does not respond or contact the registrar, the domain is deleted and enters the Redemption Grace Period, or perhaps it is immediately released? That will give several weeks for the registrant to resolve the
problem. The length of time involved will also serve to discourage most
attempts to exploit the system based on claims of
inaccurate data.
Issue 3 - Registry delete process
================================= After a registrar issues a delete command to a
registry, registry
operators have various methods for actually deleting a name. Registrants have also developed various approaches for predicting when the name will actually become available for registration - although this isn't an exact science. Typically some registrants (or registrars/resellers on their behalf) scan changes in the zonefile for an early warning that a domain name is about to be deleted, they then send repeated add commands to the registry when they believe that the name may become available. Over time this has led to performance issues for both the registry operator and registrars, as many commands are executed to try to obtain a deleted name. Some registrars have suggested that they would like
to see a uniform
process for the actual deletion of a domain name. In this process they would like to see the registry operator periodically publish a list of names that are scheduled for deletion, and an exact time or time range when the deletion will occur. In addition, some registries would like to see a standard method for the addition of names, such as a round-robin queue system, to help alleviate problems from add storms, and to provide an equitable manner of domain name reallocation. This may result in a fairer market for obtaining these names, and may ensure that the "add" storm is confined to a small segment of time. A possible policy action is to determine a uniform
process for a
registry to delete and reallocate names that ensures that the market is equally informed of the names about to be available, and schedule for when the names are available. MY COMMENTS ON ISSUE
3:
======================= There are actually two issues brought up
here:
1) A uniform deletes policy for registries. This is
already answered with the Redemption Grace Period. It should be implemented by
all gTLD registries.
2) A uniform reallocation method for deleted names.
Again, I would recommend that this be left to a different task force. It is a huge issue on its own
merits. My
personal feeling is that the registries are already
required to provide equal access to all registrars. This simply needs to continue to be enforced, and then let competition and the market place rule from
there.
Issue 4 - Reversal of renewal
transactions
========================================== With reference to the Renew/Extend grace period of
the .com Registry
agreement: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appc-16apr01.htm (similar wording is in the .biz, .info and .name agreements) If an error is made during a renew operation, the
operation can only be
reversed and the registrar provided with a credit for the renewal, by deleting the domain name registration. Given that mistakes can happen, it may be prudent
to create a facility that
would allow for renewal commands to be reversed (within a specific time period after the initial transaction perhaps) that wouldn't require the deletion and corrective re-registration of the domain name. Lack of consistent practice in this area may,
amongst other things,
cause a registrant to inadvertently lose their domain name registration. MY COMMENTS ON ISSUE
3:
======================= My recommendation would be that the Registries
support the same 5-day grace period for renewal operations that they do for new
registrations. Of course, this would require
modifications to the RRP or EPP. As a result, this could potentially result in
an opportunity for the registry to charge an
additional fee, or raise fees, to support/fund change.
Bottom line is, this is something the registries
will have to implement. We may want
to defer to them for recommendations on this.
|