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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 Feb 2010, at 19:11, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> I have been sorting through this chain of emails and have a few questions on 
> the proposals/wish list.
>  
> ·         Is there really a suggestion that as a Registrar we ask/require our 
> customers for a secondary email address so we can send them notifications?
> ·         There is a suggestion that Registrars/Resellers provide the email 
> address where they are sending from in advance. Do we have any evidence of 
> renewal notices being caught in spam filters? I just do not want to propose a 
> solution for a problem that does not really exist.

No idea on this one tbh

I know we had one client who decided to block ALL emails containing the string 
"black", for example :)



> ·         Does this group think that a change in the Whois will benefit the 
> registrants who do not renew their domain name? Will that provide adequate 
> notice? I am also trying to figure out what a change in the whois will solve.

Personally I'd find clearer flagging of a domain's actual status in terms of 
payment would be useful. A common complaint we get is that people check whois 
and see that the domain has an expiry date one year in the future and don't 
realise that this is not a true reflection of reality


> ·         Is “Providing plain language versions of various policy statements” 
> within scope of this group?
>  
> I am asking these in advance of tomorrow so we do not get bogged down 
> discussing these items from the wishlist if they are not pertinent or valid. 
> Basically if they are just a wishlist and nothing more.
>  
> Thanks
>  
>  
> Jeff
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 9:30 PM
> To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> Cc: PEDNR
> Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Mikey's wish lists
>  
>  
> At 06/02/2010 11:48 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> >On 7 Feb 2010, at 04:02, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> > > At 05/02/2010 01:05 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > 
> >Totally agreed, but there's no way for anyone to really know what a
> >domain is going to be used for either ...
>  
> That was my point. Our "solutions" to expiration problems should work
> for the web or e-mail, but should not presume them.
>  
>  
> > > 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.
> > 
> >The problem with that is that people tend to not check the accounts either
> > 
> >We get complaints from people who expected us to "magically" know
> >that they had either:
> >- changed their email address
> > 
> >OR
> > 
> >- were using a specific email address which they'd setup with us
> > 
> >Of course they didn't actually tell us that they'd done either of course ..
>  
> Inderstood. The suggestion to get (for instance) a gnamil account
> should be accompanied by a description (or poiter to one) of how to
> get typical e-mail clients to check the new mailbox automatically.
>  
> But ultimately, we should put in place solutions that are practical,
> but we cannot protect everyone from their own stupidity.
>  
> > >> 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.
> > 
> >In order to preserve sanity gTLDs only please
>  
> Sanity notwithstanding, as a GNSO PDP WG we have no standing to
> impact ccTLDs, and for that matter, as ICANN, we have no standing to
> impact ccTLDs within the scope of expiration issues.
>  
> Not to say that (with sufficient arrogance) we could not come up with
> suggested best practices for them.  But probably not on my watch!  ;-)
>  
> Alan
>  
>  
> > 
> > 
> >Regards
> > 
> >Michele
> > 
> > 
> >Mr Michele Neylon
> >Blacknight Solutions
> >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> >http://www.blacknight.com/
> >http://blog.blacknight.com/
> >http://mneylon.tel
> >Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> >US: 213-233-1612
> >UK: 0844 484 9361
> >Locall: 1850 929 929
> >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
> >-------------------------------
> >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>  

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business  
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845