ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


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

Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal
  • From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:24:35 -0400

In my "personal" opinion

Tim's logic apperas to be quite sound here...

Ken Stubbs

Tim Ruiz wrote:
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.
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.
One registrant 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?
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.
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.
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 relied on that data for lawful purposes, and it complicates registrar implementation by affecting some of our useful business procedures.
I would appreciate it if the TF would reconsider the removal of these dates from the registry Whois.



Tim


-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal From: "Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, September 18, 2006 10:59 am To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Hi all:

    I just re-sent the read-only link to the Writely document of the
    OPOC proposal.  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).  If you have
    previously logged into Writely, you should be able to simply go to
    writely.com <http://writely.com/>, login, and the proposal should be
    displayed in your list of available documents.

    Earlier today, I made several edits tot he proposal that I encourage
    you to review.  Specifically, these edits relate to:

    1) Introducing a definition of the purpose of the registered name
    holder (which mirrors the definition adopted by the Transfers Task
    Force),
    2) Introduces language indicating that the administrative and
    technical contacts would have no purpose within the context of Whois
    if the proposal were adopted,
    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.

    Please feel free to review these changes and to make further edits
    that you think improve them.

    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.

    Let me know if you have any further questions,

    Jordyn




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