RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] A Question to the Registrars on the List

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael:

I should probably think about this a bit longer before responding. But
off the cuff, I believe only Question #1 has any bearing on this
particular PDP.  And our position on this is "Yes."

J.


   -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] A Question to the Registrars on the List
 From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 10:45 am
 To: "'PEDNR'" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
 
 
 Hello All:
 
 In trying to take a step back from the use of the politically charged
"M" word, perhaps the registrars on the list could answer a couple of
questions.
 
 Question 1: A registrar's primary obligation with regard to this WG's
scope of work is to make sure that a registrant has multiple options to
renew a domain name and prevent unintended expirations/deletions. Yes/No
 
 Question 2: Assuming that a registrar provides the registrant with
multiple informed options to renew the domain name, and assuming that
the registrant declines to exercise those rights, it is totally
permissible for that registrar through their terms of service to take
exclusive limited control of that domain name for potential reallocation
or deletion? Yes/No
 
 Question 3: If an ICANN domain name registration authority such as a
Registrar is permitted to unilaterally amend the terms of service to
take over a name that a registrant does not want at expiration, is there
anything prohibiting a registry from amending its terms of service to
provided a new registry service for an limited exclusive period of time?
Yes/No. If no, please explain the difference.
 
 Question 4: Given a registrar network of approximately 1,000 registrars
and a reseller network of perhaps hundreds of thousands, would it not be
best to build in consumer/registrant safeguards that promote openness,
transparency, and predictability at the registry level? Yes/No. Please
explain.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Michael