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

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan no, as per the call going on right now, having to delete a name to get
it to RGP is an existing artefact of the current broken process. So I am
suggesting that there are a number of possibilities to get RGP "working as
intended" if we are willing to reconsider how RGP functionally works,..... 

Best Regards,

Michael Young

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: September-15-09 2:19 PM
To: 'PEDNR'
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] A Question to the Registrars on the List


Michael, I don't know if I am acting to clarify what you are saying, 
or to play devil's advocate, but here goes.

If you want to reinstate the RGP to how it was envisioned at the time 
it was created, then this implies that registrars no be able to take 
sell, auction or transfer an expired domain, but must delete it so 
that it enters the RGP.

Is this what you mean?

Alan

At 15/09/2009 01:55 PM, Michael Young wrote:

>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