[registrars] Draft Delete Recs & General Comments

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Just getting caught up on the work of the deletes task force - here are
some general comments for the benefit of the TF rep and the membership.

...

UDRP Exceptions:

I must say that this is one of the more involved, least sensible
proposals that I have seen since WLS was put forward as a solution to
the "add-storm" issue.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00077.html

Specifically, I cannot understand why it would be important, desirable
or even appropriate to force a registrant to extend a contract because
of an outstanding dispute.

What is it specifically that this proposal is attempting to achieve? If
it is simply to pander to a narrow range of IP oriented interests, might
I be so bold as to suggest that this might not be worth the trouble that
it took to put it into words? Never mind whether or not it is worthy of
further consideration.

"Undo":

Regarding issue #4 here:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00079.html

Undo is an important function. The task force can and should deal with
the issue on a policy level. Dodging the hard question by characterizing
this as an IETF issue does the registrar and larger community a huge
disservice. "Undo" represents a purely administrative function begging
for policy analysis and correction - the technology can follow later
once the requirements have been spec'd through the policy process.

Re-allocation:

To V.3 here
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00082.html
(reallocation): predictable processes are hugely valuable to my business
and my customers. Please don't sidestep this important issue - it begs
to be dealt with as well.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow