Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Mikey's wish lists

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Other than one request for a clarification, here 
are my thoughts on the "easy" ones.
At 05/02/2010 01:05 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> ?Mikey?s Wish List ­ easy stuff
>
> Originate renewal notices from a 
> consistent/distinctive email address that is 
> used for no other purpose (and remind 
> registrants to white-list the address in spam filters)
This has merit - if a registrar (or reseller) 
would tell the registrant where important notices 
will come from (and this includes changes to the 
registration agreement where the RAA requires 
notification), it would be a lot easier to blame 
the registrant if the messages are ignored.
> Establish minimum expiration-reminder schedule (pre and post-expiry)
Agree. One could also question who they should 
come from. Some registries take responsibility for this.
> Provide consistent ?service disruption? across registrars on expiration
I am not sure we need absolute consistency rather 
than "consistent-within-some-envelope" and 
definitely predictability for any given registration.
> Always disrupt web service on expiration ­ triggers active/technical response
Agree, but see caveats below.

> Do not disrupt email on expiration ­ to aid in contacting registrant
I understand the intent (that is, to allow 
messages to the RAE to get through, but I 
disagree with the solution. Ignoring the 
technical issues that Michele raised (which I 
only half agree with - there are technical 
solutions, but they are kludgy and probably prone 
to various problems), I do not think that this is a reasonable thing to do.
There are a very large number of domain names 
that are used ONLY for e-mail. Implementing this 
solution violates the intent of the previous one 
wish list item which could be translated as "make 
it bloody hard to ignore that the domain has 
expired - in-your-face solutions are better than subtle ones".
When a domain name is registered, there are no 
flags in WHOIS saying how the name is going to be 
used. As we go into more sophisticated situations 
of systems interacting with each other, often 
without human intermediaries, we need to get out 
of the mode that assumes that the web and port 80 
is the only thing that matters.
A better solution would be to insist that at 
least one of the contact e-mail addresses must 
use a domain name different from the one being 
registered. With today's availability of free 
reliable addresses, there is little reason not to do this.
> Provide consistent and informative domain-status 
> flags across registries, registrars and TLDs
Hard to argue with. But once you say TLDs vs 
gTLDs, it is not likely to be more than a pipe-dream and certainly not easy.
> Provide ?plain language? versions of the various 
> policy statements, with disclaimers that point to the ?real deal? legal stuff
Generally agree. It is interesting looking at 
agreements that for any given registrar, they may 
have loose words for some things, and really 
specific tight words for others, even though the 
two are not very different to implement.
> Change confusingly-similar terms like ?automatic 
> renewal? vs ?auto renew grace period?
If we cannot come up with a better set, then that 
would be really bad news. How easy it is going to 
be to get them used universally is another matter.


> ?Mikey?s Wish List ­ harder stuff
>
> Work to eliminate confusing registrar-slamming schemes
> Establish minimum standards for registrar WHOIS 
> information display (data elements, sequence, 
> captions, consistency, availability, etc.)
> Provide consistent minimum processes across 
> registrars and TLDs to determine domain status
> Provide consistent notification/display of 
> deletion, automatic-renewal, auto-renew 
> grace-period and redemption grace-period 
> policies on reseller/registrar web pages
> Provide consistent redemption grace-period 
> intervals rather than leaving it up to provider discretion
Do you mean Redemption Grace Period (as in the 
defined RGP) or a more generic meaning?
> Provide consistent post-expiry implications when 
> registrants elect not to automatically-renew 
> domains and/or opt out of monetization of web addresses
> ?Mikey?s Wish List ­ really hard stuff
>
> Eliminate conflict of interest ­ registrar 
> either generates revenue from renewal OR 
> monetization/aftermarket-auction/drop-catching, not both
> Offer a mechanism (perhaps a ?token??) during 
> Pending-Delete that can be used by registrant to 
> recover the name in the drop-catching/auction post-delete
> Shift all TLDs to thick-registry model to aid in 
> normalizing WHOIS-based processes