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

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well better late to the party than never. 

Let me share my thoughts.

On the topic of RGP:

I agree that a (much stated) goal of this working group is to uphold the
original intent of the RGP.  

The RGP was meant to allow a reasonable last ditch effort to garner the
attention of registrants who have not been minding their domains adequately
in regards to renewals. This is why part of the RGP process was to "darken"
the domain in the DNS; an act which we all surmised would gain the attention
of a distracted registrant who truly wanted to maintain their registration. 

On Autorenew and RGP:

When creating the RGP process, it was not considered that the Autorenew
grace period would in practise be used differently than it was at that time.
The AGP was originally meant to get the attention of the registrar that a
domain was expiring by charging them.  Accordingly this grace period was
long enough to allow the registrar to try and collect the owed monies from
the registrant.
  
Why RGP doesn't do its job anymore,.......

Upon a domain's expiry, some parties are arguing that it is valid for the
holder of the domain name (registrant) to revert back to the registrar or
possibly another third party entity. I am not a lawyer and do not intend to
attempt to take a side in that argument. However, I think we can all agree
that IF the holder of a domain is altered, then it affects the existing RGP
process.

Our primary goal should be, I think, is to recommend a change that ensures
that RGP will work effectively.  I don't think that the protection of the
registrant has to be at the expense of the other interest groups here.

Michael Young


   







Best Regards,

Michael Young

Vice-President,
Product Development
Afilias
O: +14166734109
C: +16472891220


-----Original Message-----
From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: September-11-09 12:14 PM
To: James M. Bladel; Michael D. Palage
Cc: PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] A Question to the Registrars on the List


I have to agree with James.

I reiterate: registrars are involved in this WG to give a good faith
effort to ensure that, as much as is practical, their customers don't
unintentionally lose a domain name.

No one is here to have theoretical debates about what constitutes a
monopoly, or answer university exam questions.  I politely suggest again
we stay focused on the questions at hand:

1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their
expired domain names;
2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration
agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming
expirations;
4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that
once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired
(e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on
how to renew, or other options to be determined);
5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

None of the questions below have any applicability toward this PDP, save
for question 1.


-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:56 AM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: 'PEDNR'
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] A Question to the Registrars on the List


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