RE: [registrars] Deletes Task Force needs your input

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Michael,

 

Thanks for reviewing this and offering your comments.

 

>What effects if any will VRSN proposed removal of the 45 day grace period have on these recommendations?

 

I think this is yet to be seen based on how expired domains are treated. If the 45 day grace period is dropped does that mean that a name not renewed before expiry is automatically placed in the RGP? Or will there be a minimum period of time that the registrar has to decide what to do (basically a grace period again). If it is automatically dropped that would mean it is immediately put on hold and dropped from the zone, ouch! Not sure I like that idea. Also, recovering a domain from the RGP is not as simple as issuing an RRP command. But you're right, something to certainly consider.

 

But would you AGREE or at least NOT DISAGREE with the conclusion that 1.c. is probably not in the scope of this Task Force?

 

>1.e CONCERN

 

I will add your comments to this point.

 

>3.b AGREE in part. Registries should be allowed to develop various allocation mechanisms for the reallocation of domain names. This is not a one size fits all solution. Let the market determine what works and what doesn't. This should be outside the scope of all ICANN Task Forces.

 

I understand, and we should of course discuss this more fully within the RC. Right now I will leave this point as non-committal as possible and edit it further to read:

 

There has been no current consensus on best practice for registry reallocation of deleted names. Several proposals were put forward for an informal poll on October 19, 2001. Those proposals and the results of the poll can be found at http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes/.

 

Thanks,

Tim

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:39 PM
To: Registrars@dnso.org; tim@godaddy.com
Subject: RE: [registrars] Deletes Task Force needs your input

Thanks for taking the lead on this issue Tim:

 

A couple of comments:

 

What effects if any will VRSN proposed removal of the 45 day grace period have on these recommendations?

 

1.a AGREE

1.b AGREE

1.c CONCERN - Does the ability to have differing resell policies during the 45 day grace period create the opportunity for gaming the system by some registrars? However, the proposed removal of the 45 day grace period does appear to remove this concern.

1.d AGREE extending the 5 day front end grace period would be outside the scope of this Task Force

1.e CONCERN - The UDRP requires the name to be locked and the status quo maintained, thus a domain name should not be deleted. However, based upon my discussion with some providers in the UDRP Task Force, there are some names that are deleted and registered prior to the issuance of a decision by the panel. I believe there should be a safety net to provide a trademark owner the opportunity to prevent a domain name from expiring prior to the issuance of a panel decision. I am not advocating that a registrar pick up the tab, but possibly allow the domain name registration term to be paid for by the complainant pending resolution. No down side for registrars. However, what information would appear in the Whois does need to be addressed. Possible use the temporarily Whois data fields Afilias used in LR2.

 

2.a DO NOT DISAGREE

2.b. AGREE

 

3.a AGREE

3.b AGREE in part. Registries should be allowed to develop various allocation mechanisms for the reallocation of domain names. This is not a one size fits all solution. Let the market determine what works and what doesn't. This should be outside the scope of all ICANN Task Forces.

 

4.a DO NOT DISAGREE

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:46 PM
To: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Deletes Task Force needs your input

Attached is the RC draft position so far. It is based on the response, or lack thereof, to my request for input below. I will be submitting this to the Task Force by EOB tomorrow, November 22nd, as an informal statement based on current feedback that may change before a formal statement is adopted by the RC.

 

Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. The next Task Force meeting is the morning of the 25th.

 

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:01 AM
To: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Deletes Task Force needs your input
Importance: High

Ken has forwarded the full minutes from the initial meeting of the Deletes TF. Our goal is to have formal constituency positions by November 22. However, we realize that may be difficult given the late start of the TF, and various constituency bylaws.

 

I would like to open up the discussion on these issues through Wednesday. And then present a draft position based on these comments to the RC by Thursday the 21st. Some discussion may yet follow before we actually vote to adopt a position, but it will give me some further basis for discussion during the November 22nd TF conf. call.

 

In particular, I need comments regarding 1.d, 1.e, 2.b, 3.b, and 4.a by our next meeting.

 

Rick, in regards to 3.b wasn't there an RC proposal at one time regarding a round-robin reallocation method? Is a copy of that available?

 

To summarize the current situation:

 

Issue 1:  Uniform delete practice after domain name expiry by registrars
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

a. Domain names not explicitly renewed MUST be deleted by the end of the 45 day grace period.

 

b. Registrars may decide how they will deal with deletes during the 45 day grace period but MUST post their deletes policy on their site, perhaps as part of their registration agreement.

 

c. The issue reselling names during the 45 grace period appears to be outside the scope of this task force.

 

d. Extending the 5 day grace period for Adds was discussed, but it was felt this may also be outside the scope of this task force. If the constituencies felt otherwise, we may ask the NC to extend our scope.

 

e. The issue of how to deal with expiring names that are the subject of a UDRP dispute is yet to be addressed.

 

Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy
---------------------------------------------------------

 

a. Given that this issue overlaps with the work of the Whois task force, it was general felt that this task force should deal only with what happens AFTER a decision has been made to delete the name.

 

b. It was generally agreed that the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) as currently defined should apply, with the exception of one of the following conditions:

 

1. Evidence that the data had been corrected must be submitted.
2. The RGP only applies the first time a domain is deleted for this reason within a 12 month time period.

 

The TF asked that I determine the RC's preference as to which condition they would prefer to see adopted.

 

Issue 3: Registry delete process
--------------------------------

 

a. It was generally felt that the RGP provided the solution for a uniform deletes policy among registries.

 

b. The reallocation of deleted names was another matter. The Registry Constituency was asked to provide proposals. I would suggest that the RC also provide feedback on this subject.

 

First and foremost, does the RC believe that a uniform mechanism needs to exist to ensure the fair reallocation of deleted names?

 

If so, what mechanisms would we propose? Or perhaps we may want to look first at the Registry Constituency responses.

 

Issue 4: Reversal of renewal transactions
-----------------------------------------

 

a. Basically, we have to delete a name to reverse a renewal. From my experience this most often comes up during the 45 day grace period. It doesn't seem to be a problem because the end result is a deleted name either way. But this could also come up in regards to extending names prior to expiry (when deleting a name and registering it is not acceptable) and mistakes result in having to get registry support involved to undo it.

 

Do you really see this as a problem? What are suggested solutions, for example, an RRP UNDO command?