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