Additional comment - Establishing a norm for deciding whether to retain, modify, or abandon 5-day grace periods.

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxx>]

I was on ICANN's board when the various 5 day grace periods crept into 
the contracts.  (I voted against, but for reasons apart from the 5-day 
periods.)
These were very large contracts with many appendices.  It is my 
recollection that at no time did the board ever explicitly discuss or 
consider the wisdom of these 5-day periods.  Nor did ICANN's "staff" who 
actually wrote these provisions, bring their existence to the attention 
of the board of directors.  It may be fair to say that few, if any, 
board members even knew of the existence of these provisions when we 
adopted them along with all the other provisions of the contracts.
(These 5-day grace periods are not to be confused with the longer 
"redemption grace" period that was adopted to help deal with registrants 
who fail to renew a name before the end of their contract period.  That 
redemption grace period was considered explicitly by the board and it is 
not one of the grace periods that is involved with "tasting".)
Getting back to my main point - these 5-day grace periods are not the 
result of a considered deliberation on the part of ICANN.  They fell 
through the cracks.
Consequently one ought not to give the normal deference to the status 
quo that one would give had these provisions been the result of a 
thoughtful deliberation and debate.  Instead these 5-day provisions 
should be considered in a context which looks at them afresh.
In this fresh evaluation these 5-day grace periods should have to be 
demonstrated as being valuable and useful; if the proponents do not 
carry that burden then these 5-day grace periods should be abandoned.
                --karl--
                Karl Auerbach