ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal

  • To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 04:49:48 -0700

<div>Thanks Jordyn. I do have a concern. I know it's been previously
debated but I am still not convinced it is a good idea to remove the
creation and expiry dates from the registry whois requirements.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Our experience has been that a number of registrants use that
information as part of their name management. The reason may be that
the registry whois is more reliable, easier to query, whatever. But
cutting that option off as part of this potential policy change isn't
necessary at the outset.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>One registrant&nbsp;use for that information that I think has merit
is keeping the registrar honest so to speak. Many registrants know that
what may appear in the registrar whois does not necessarily reflect what
has actually taken place. For example, if you pay for a multi-year
renewal is the registrar putting them through one year at a time, or
all together? </div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Registrars also use that information. For example, we use it to
determine if there is a likelyhood of transfer at the time of the
request - not within 60-days of registration. We also use it to
determine how many years the name can be extended for so we can offer
an upsell of additonal years at the time of the transfer request. This
has been extremely popular with our customers. It's true that we could
get some of this info by requesting the authcode right up front.
However, we have found that when we did that our abandonment rate was
very high. Customers who didn't have the code or even knew they needed
one left to go figure it out (sometimes to never return). We now ask
for the code once the transfer purchase is complete, as part of the
final authorization process. That has been working extremely well. It
allows us to successfully complete more transfers, and our customers
have not seen it as a problem.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I think that if the OPoC concept does become policy, some time needs
to be given to see how it works, how it is enforced, how it is received
by registrants, etc. Then taking it further by removing the dates from
the registry can be considered.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I realize the reasoning behind removing it from the registry whois.
But as I've said in the past, it is not the real solution to the
renewal slamming problem. The bad guys are going to find a way,
especially since the worse offenders are registrars themselves. To
remove these dates at the same time as the implementation of the OPoC
concept will just serve to further confuse registrants and others who
have&nbsp;relied on that data for lawful purposes,&nbsp;and
it&nbsp;complicates registrar implementation by affecting some of our
useful business procedures.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I would appreciate it if&nbsp;the TF would&nbsp;reconsider the
removal of these dates from the registry Whois.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal<BR>From: "Jordyn Buchanan"
&lt;jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, September 18, 2006
10:59 am<BR>To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Hi all:<BR><BR>I just
re-sent the read-only link to the Writely document of the OPOC
proposal.&nbsp; Task force members that have lost their link that
provides read/write access can e-mail me (read/write access is also
necessary to see revision history, unfortunately).&nbsp; If you have
previously logged into Writely, you should be able to simply go to <A
href="http://writely.com/";>writely.com</A>, login, and the proposal
should be displayed in your list of available documents.<BR><BR>Earlier
today, I made several edits tot he proposal that I encourage you to
review.&nbsp; Specifically, these edits relate to: <BR><BR>1)
Introducing a definition of the purpose of the registered name holder
(which mirrors the definition adopted by the Transfers Task
Force),<BR>2) Introduces language indicating that the administrative
and technical contacts would have no purpose within the context of
Whois if the proposal were adopted, <BR>3) Adds a section relating to
notifying registrants of the changes introduced by the OPOC and of the
purpose of the contacts at the time of registration.<BR><BR>Please feel
free to review these changes and to make further edits that you think
improve them. <BR><BR>Also, if you have general ideas or suggestions to
improve the OPOC proposal (for example, to address any of the concerns
that were raised in our review of various data elements), I strongly
encourage you to send them to the list (or add them to the Writely
document) before our next call. <BR><BR>Let me know if you have any
further questions,<BR><BR>Jordyn<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>