RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional Fact Finding and Proposed Registar Survey Questions

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan, thanks for a productive call.

 

To be clear, I am not intending to create a Catch-22.  Again, I don't
want to speak for all registrars, but more than a few would obviously
dispute the significance of this issue to begin with.  One could
interpret this:

 

            Registrars will not 

participate unless we give them hard data, and as 

was brought up during the workshop in Sydney, 

Registrars are in the absolute best position to 

tell us what the magnitude of the problem is.

 

...as saying something akin to: "We think there's a problem.  We have no
real evidence beyond the anecdotal that there is, and we know you don't
observe operationally that there is, but will you please share your data
to help us demonstrate that there is?"

 

When you say:

 

Yes, they may ultimately be forced to 

change their business practices if we end up with 

some specific policy that impacts them. But that 

may be the price to pay for regulating those who 

are perhaps a bit less honourable.

 

I hope you can appreciate the gravity of that statement.  The majority
of good actors in effect will be asked to absorb an impact (operational,
revenue, resources, jobs) and, importantly, re-set customer expectations
for a problem they don't believe exists, or if it does can pretty easily
resolve.  I'm also troubled by having significant impacts dismissed by
those not obligated to absorb them.

 

I'm very sure I'm wearing everyone out on this subject, and I do not
intend to be needlessly combative, but moving forward on such lack of a
demonstrated problem makes no sense.  It seems, however, that most of
the group is determined to move ahead whether evidence of a problem
exists or not.  If that's the case, I hope we can discuss practices that
encourage helpful behavior on the part of registrants, registrars and
resellers.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:15 AM
To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional Fact Finding and Proposed
Registar Survey Questions

 

 

Mason, although I don't disagree with some of 

what you say, I think that you are designing a 

classic "Catch-22" scenario. Registrars will not 

participate unless we give them hard data, and as 

was brought up during the workshop in Sydney, 

Registrars are in the absolute best position to 

tell us what the magnitude of the problem is.

 

I think it is really important to recognize that 

registrars who are bending over backwards to be 

reasonable and responsive to customers are NOT a 

major part of the problem that we are addressing 

here. Yes, they may ultimately be forced to 

change their business practices if we end up with 

some specific policy that impacts them. But that 

may be the price to pay for regulating those who 

are perhaps a bit less honourable.

 

On a more practical note, how do we get this kind 

of discussion to take place other than a few hours before the next
meeting?????

 

Alan

 

At 11/08/2009 01:19 PM, Mason Cole wrote:

>I concur with Tim's request - a discussion of 

>pricing is precluded for those reasons.

> 

>I believe Mike's proposed registrar survey is 

>premature - there is insufficient clarity as to 

>what demonstrated harm this group is working to 

>cure.  Until that data is known, it is 

>irresponsible consider policy or survey 

>registrars on their business practices.  We have 

>to know the extent of the problem, if in fact it 

>does exist, and how it most often occurs if 

>we're to responsibly orient our actions.

> 

>Further, I can predict some registrars will be 

>extremely hesitant to reply to a survey if that 

>kind of information is not made available, and 

>may perceive this effort to be unnecessary 

>regulation of their businesses.  I believe this 

>group will get better registrar cooperation in 

>any effort if this group can talk about specific 

>harms occurring to their registrants and enlist 

>their suggestions in dealing with those harms, 

>rather than moving immediately to changes in 

>procedure that can be disruptive to customer 

>relationships and are costly in terms of resources.

> 

>To that end I need to ask for clarity:

> 

>*         Again, what is the precise 

>problem?  The initial issues report indicates 

>it's to prevent unintended loss of a name.  Is 

>that still the case?  Or are there other hoped-for outcomes?

>o        Corollary: I know there's a stated 

>desire for more predictability.  As a matter of 

>further clarity, I would ask: Is the need for 

>more predictability a way to prevent unintended 

>loss of a name?  Or is it desired for another reason?

>*         What is the demonstrated extent of the 

>problem?  How often do registrants lose a name 

>and cannot have it recovered in any scenario?

>*         Where is the source of the problem and 

>how does it occur specifically?

>o        I heard quite a bit of discussion in 

>Sydney about resellers being the real source of 

>the problem.  I still have not seen any kind of 

>documentation about how this is the case.  I 

>would like to understand that better.  How can 

>that information be made available to this group?

> 

>I firmly believe data beyond the anecdotal is 

>necessary to be accurately informed.  Proposing 

>policy on the anecdotal, or on what might happen 

>(as stated in the issues report request), is a 

>waste of our time and ICANN's resources.  If 

>information beyond the anecdotal is simply 

>unavailable, I suggest it's irresponsible to 

>work toward policy that may or may not 

>accomplish anything, and may in fact have unintended consequences.

> 

>I read William's report to this group and 

>understand it may be difficult to document 

>and/or categorize name recovery efforts.  That 

>is a challenge to this group, but if our efforts 

>are to be accurately directed, it's necessary.

> 

>You may have seen that in the past few days, a 

>study commissioned by ICANN to find evidence of 

>"front-running" found, in fact, that there is no 

>evidence of front-running (as currently 

>defined).  This was after front-running was 

>assumed to be happening and had been in active 

>discussion in various parts of the community as 

>a target of policy development.  (I'm no fan of 

>front-running, but given the report, I'd hope 

>the community is focusing its attention on the 

>myriad issues that do actually exist.)

> 

>I want to be clear that I do not seek to delay 

>or obstruct.  I don't speak for all registrars, 

>but I believe I can say the distinct majority of 

>registrars are very much interested in ensuring 

>good treatment of their customers-as I mentioned 

>in Sydney, the registrar business is extremely 

>competitive and it simply costs too much in time 

>and effort to attract customers simply to abuse 

>that relationship for the sake of selling a 

>name.  I would hope this group understands 

>that.  There are a range of options available to 

>us to encourage registrants to be aware of the 

>need to maintain valuable names, encourage good reseller practices,
etc.

> 

>I look forward to a more refined look at the 

>situation as it exists, and to today's call.

> 

> 

> 

> 

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

>Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:50 AM

>To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx

>Cc: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx

>Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional Fact 

>Finding and Proposed Registar Survey Questions

> 

> 

>I apologize but I cannot make the call today. I will

>listen to the recording later. Regarding Mike's survey

>questions I ask that any questions related registrar

>pricing be removed for two reasons.

> 

>1. Pricing is excluded from consensus policy in the

>RAA.

> 

>2. Registrars cannot discuss it here due to antitrust

>concerns.

> 

> 

>Tim

>Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail.

> 

> 

> 

> > -------- Original Message --------

> > Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional Fact Finding and Proposed
Registar

> > Survey Questions

> > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>

> > Date: Mon, August 10, 2009 9:42 pm

> > To: <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

> >

> >

> >    Hello All:

> >

> >    Just doing some additional

> >    fact finding in connection

> >    with Tuesday's PENDR Working

> >    Group call.

> >

> >    On the issue of creating

> >    openness, transparency and

> >    predictability for registrants

> >    with regard to recovering

> >    expired domain names, I share

> >    the following information

> >    regarding divergent practices

> >    by gTLD registries. I submit

> >    that these divergent practices

> >    are neither a good or a bad

> >    thing, but that their

> >    existence does seem to suggest

> >    the need for a predictable

> >    safety net to protect

> >    registrant interests.

> >

> >    The Majority of registries

> >    .COM, .NET, .NAME, .JOBS,

> >    .INFO, .ORG, .ASIA, .MOBI,

> >    .AERO, and .PRO debit the

> >    registrar of record's account

> >    the renewal rate, and then

> >    give that registrar 45 days to

> >    cancel the domain name and

> >    receive a credit. During this

> >    window the Whois associated

> >    with this domain name will not

> >    show the original expiration

> >    date, but a date one year from

> >    the expiration based upon the

> >    money that was debited from

> >    the registrar's account.

> >

> >    There is a minority number of

> >    registries, .BIZ, .TRAVEL, TEL

> >    and .CAT that do not debit the

> >    registrar account until the

> >    end of the 45 day auto-renewal

> >    grace period. During this time

> >    the Whois will reflect the

> >    original expiration date in

> >    the Whois.

> >

> >    The .COOP registry has a 5 day

> >    grace period following

> >    expiration where the domain

> >    name still appears in the zone

> >    file. After this 5 day grace

> >    period the domain name is

> >    removed from the zone file for

> >    40 days. Forty five days after

> >    expiration the domain name is

> >    made available for

> >    re-registration.

> >

> >    During the last call I

> >    suggested the need to get some

> >    data points from within the

> >    registrar/reseller community.

> >    In an effort to jump start

> >    that effort, I have proposed a

> >    list of survey questions that

> >    the group may wish to discuss

> >    tomorrow. I am sure some of my

> >    former registrar colleagues

> >    will propose some mark-ups to

> >    these questions but given the

> >    shrinking window between now

> >    and Seoul, I thought I would

> >    take a first crack at this

> >    important fact gathering

> >    survey. (see below)

> >

> >    I look forward to tomorrow's

> >    call and I want to thank

> >    William and Tatyana for their

> >    previous posts I found them

> >    very constructive.

> >

> >    Best regards,

> >

> >    Michael

> >

> >    Proposed Registrar Survey

> >    Questions:

> >

> >    1)  What is the registrar's

> >    practice regarding a domain

> >    name at the time of expiration

> >    when the registrant gives

> >    explicit instructions

> >    regarding its intention NOT to

> >    renew the domain names? (i.e.

> >    does the registrar process and

> >    delete command, does the

> >    registrar change the whois

> >    prior to expiration, does the

> >    registrar allow the domain

> >    name to auto-renew in those

> >    registries that employ that

> >    policy, etc.)

> >

> >    2)  What is the registrar's

> >    practice regarding a domain

> >    name at the time of expiration

> >    when the registrant is silent

> >    regarding its intention to

> >    renew a domain name? (i.e.

> >    does the registrar process and

> >    delete command, does the

> >    registrar change the whois

> >    prior to expiration, does the

> >    registrar allow the domain

> >    name to auto-renew in those

> >    registries that employ that

> >    policy, etc.)

> >

> >    3)  Does the registrar

> >    affirmatively change any of

> >    the underlying Whois data

> >    associated with the domain

> >    name in or around the time of

> >    expiration? (yes/no)

> >

> >    4)  Does the registrar of

> >    record have any contractual

> >    terms in the original

> >    registration agreement

> >    regarding the treatment of the

> >    domain name registration

> >    service contract at the time

> >    of expiration? If so what are

> >    they?

> >

> >    5)  If the registrar changes

> >    the Whois data at the time of

> >    expiration is that practice

> >    dependent upon the TLD (i.e.

> >    auto-renew v.s.

> >    non-auto-renew) or is the

> >    change in underlying Whois

> >    data the same regardless of

> >    the TLD?

> >

> >    6)  Does the registrar or any

> >    affiliate offer any value

> >    added services regarding the

> >    sale/auction of domain names

> >    after their date of original

> >    expiration, if so what are

> >    those services?

> >

> >    7)  Does the registrar or any

> >    affiliate provide any revenue

> >    share opportunities in

> >    connection with any revenue

> >    recognized in connection with

> >    the value added services with

> >    the registrant prior to

> >    expiration? If so what are

> >    they?

> >

> >    8)  Does the registrar or

> >    affiliate provide the

> >    registrant prior to expiration

> >    the right to remove a name

> >    from this value added service

> >    offering?

> >

> >    9)  What is the cost to the

> >    registrant to recover/renew a

> >    domain name during the

> >    Registry Redemption Grace

> >    Period? (Note in providing

> >    this cost do not include the

> >    registry cost component which

> >    may vary per TLD, only provide

> >    the registrar mark-up?) Is

> >    this mark-up the same across

> >    all TLDs, or does it vary from

> >    TLD to TLD? How many of your

> >    domain name registrants pay

> >    this fee on an annual basis?

> >

> >    10)What is the cost to the

> >    registrant to recover/renew a

> >    domain name post expiration

> >    but prior to the imposition of

> >    any Registry Redemption Grace

> >    Period. (Note in providing

> >    this cost do not include the

> >    registry cost component which

> >    may vary per TLD, only provide

> >    the registrar mark-up?) Is

> >    this mark-up the same across

> >    all TLDs, or does it vary from

> >    TLD to TLD? How many of your

> >    domain name registrants pay

> >    this fee on an annual basis?

> >

> >    11)Aside from these two

> >    recovery/renewal windows does

> >    the registrar impose any fees

> >    on a registrant other than a

> >    regular renewal price to

> >    renew/re-register the domain

> >    name? If so what are? How many

> >    of your domain name

> >    registrants pay this

> >    additional fee on an annual

> >    basis?

> >

> >    12)Does the registrar or

> >    affiliate provide the

> >    registrant the ability to

> >    renew/re-register a domain

> >    name once it has entered an

> >    auction process? If so what

> >    are the costs imposed on the

> >    registrant?

> >

> >    13)Are participants in

> >    registrar or affiliates

> >    auction apprised of the

> >    registrant's rights to

> >    renew/re-register a domain

> >    name during the auction? If so

> >    how and what are the terms of

> >    that notification?

> >

> >    14)For those registrars or

> >    their affiliates that provide

> >    auction services with the

> >    ability of the registrant to

> >    renew/re-register a name, what

> >    number of registrants have

> >    exercised that right?

> >

> >    15)What percentage of the

> >    overall gTLD market does the

> >    registrar responding to this

> >    questionnaire represent?

> >

> >    16)Is the registrar responding

> >    to this questionnaire part of

> >    a family of registrars sharing

> >    common ownership?

>