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: "Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:44:39 -0400

Thanks for this suggestion, Tim (and the helpful discussion around it).

Just a reminder to everyone that if you have other ideas to improve the OPOC
proposal, please try to send them to the list (or update the Writely
document and then let us know) no later than tomorrow.  This will help us
have a useful discussion on Monday's call.

Jordyn

On 9/21/06, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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, 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 >>>