RE: [registrars] RGP Bug - Steps for a proposed fix

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

In addition to hearing from the Registries, I would like to request that
we issue a formal invitation to an ICANN Staff representative in order
that they can clearly outline their position on this matter for the
record. While it seems that both the ICANN Staff and the Registries were
perfectly clear in their conception of the policy during its
development, it seems that important details were not communicated or
appropriately understood by this constituency. It is extremely important
that we clear this up as cleanly as possible and move on and I believe
that this can only be done with the participation of all parties that
contributed to the policy in its current state.



                       -rwr




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

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 10:53 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] RGP Bug - Steps for a proposed fix
> 
> 
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>