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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not think a white list is a terrible idea, I just do not think it will be 
effective. As you say it will allow a prudent registrant to take precautions, 
and I do not think the concern here is for prudent registrants. 

As for the expiration date in the whois, once the registry auto-renews, than 
the new expiration date is one year out. Does not matter if the RAE has paid 
the registrar yet. I cannot see any system where the whois would reflect if the 
RAE had paid for the renewal or not. 




-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 11:54 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Cc: PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Mikey's wish lists

I can give my opinions...

At 08/02/2010 02:11 PM, 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?

Since that is a "possible" way to address things, yes - I said that.

It would be really useful if someone would come 
up with some statistics of what percentage and/or 
what absolute number of domains use only that 
domain for all of their contact details. Then we 
would have some handle on whether this is a 
potential issue or just a random irrelevant thought that someone had.

>*         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.

I do not know to what extent renewal notices are 
periodically caught by spam filters. Based on 
what is at times caught by my relatively well 
tuned spam filters, I would be highly surprised 
if many renewal notices are NOT caught by fitters.

My recollection is that the registrar survey 
indicates that for some registrars, messages come from a variety of addresses.

Knowing that address is advance would let a 
prudent registrant take precautions. To what 
extent this is practical for registrar or likely to be effective, I don't know.

>*         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.

Depens WHICH change you are referring to. 
Certainly a change to make the expiration date 
clear (despite the registry auto-renew grace period) would be helpful.

>*         Is "Providing plain language versions 
>of various policy statements" within scope of this group?

If we determine that the current language leads 
to a registrant who is not aware of important issues, I think that it is.


>
>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.

They started out as Mikey's wish list. As I 
noted, in at least one case, it is on MY 
anti-wish-list. Where they fall at the end we will see.

>
>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
>