[registrars] RGP Bug - Steps for a proposed fix

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Bruce:

I spoke with Louis on this matter Friday and I do not believe that VeriSign
can unilaterally alter this unintended consequence of the RGP (i.e. the RGP
billing bug). It is my understanding that this provision was provided for as
a fundamental principle in the policy from the beginning. In my discussion
with various parties Fridays, it is my further understanding that the
registrar constituency would have to formally request alteration of the
policy to allow registrars to have the 5 day grace period window reinstated
without incurring a registry fee. Because this modification only impacts
contracting parties (i.e. users are still provided a safety net against
accidental deletions) I hope that a mutually agreed upon position by both
the registrars and registries would allow the Board to take action and
modify this policy sooner as oppose to later. Perhaps a formal position
could be agreed to next week during the registrars and registries joint
meeting. I believe that taking action on this matter is imperative as the
problem could become more entrenched as more registries implement the same
process.

I have spoken with the major registries and it appears that they will all
have people available in Washington to discuss this problem. I am adding
this to the DC Agenda which will be posting within the next couple of hours.
The Hotel has extended the preferred booking rate of $139 dollars an
evening. Currently there are over 20 registrar representatives attending and
over 10 registry representatives attending at this time.

Best regards,

Mike








> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 6:13 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Recovery during grace period.
>
>
> Hello Chuck,
>
> From:
> http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm
>
> "Under the proposal, the Delete Pending Period would be extended
> from five (5) days to thirty (30) days, and would be expanded to
> cover almost all names deleted by registrars (the only exception
> would be for names deleted within the first five days after their
> initial registration). The new proposed RESTORE capability would
> effectively undo the unintentional deletion, returning the name
> to the state it was in prior to its deletion."
>
> I think we have an unintended consequence of this change related
> to the 5 day grace period to recover a name without penalty to
> the registrar.
>
> The idea was to extend the time available to recover a deleted
> domain name, but also avoid gaming.
>
> Similar to the auto-renew issue, this seems more like another
> financial issue.
>
> Would Verisign consider allowing a 5 day grace period following a
> delete before the registrar is charged for a RESTORE?  This would
> not require ICANN approval as far as I understand (ie it is a
> drop in charge rather than an increase in charge).
>
> >From an ICANN perspective, I think we could also get approved a
> 5 day grace period following a delete before the processes for
> providing justification are required.  ie within the first 5 days
> it should be possible to recover the name using the RESTORE
> command, but no other information would need to be provided.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:51 PM
> > To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'JP'; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrar
> > Constituency'
> > Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Recovery during grace period.
> >
> >
> > We designed the RGP system according to the specifications that were
> > developed via ICANN processes.  To my recollection, this
> > specific issue was
> > never addressed; at least, I was never involved in any
> > exchanges about it.
> > Unfortunately with regard to the 5-day 'pending delete'
> > period for deletes
> > not occurring during a grace period, the requirements said that a name
> > should immediately go into the RGP period.
> >
> > If there is consensus on changing this, it should be worked
> > through ICANN
> > processes as quickly as possible.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
>