<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR: A proposed path forward
- To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR: A proposed path forward
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:22:25 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Thanks, Alan. And while not an entirely "new" grace
period, the proposal would set aside the first 5 days of the Auto-Renew Grace
Period for renewal by the RAE, and postpones the registrar's own post-expiry
practices (whatever those may be) until this period has concluded. And
since this is not free to the registrar, we must allow the registrar the option
of explicitly deleting the name and initiating the 30 day Redemption Grace
Period at the registry.</div><div><br>As discussed on the call, most (if not
all) of the larger registrars already exceed this minimum by several days or
even weeks. But the proposal would provide a new (and standardized)
protection for RAEs who have missed their renewal date either by error or
miscommunication.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks--</div><div><br></div><div>J.</div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black;
font-family: verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR: A proposed path forward<br>
From: Alan Greenberg <<a
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx";>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Tue, November 02, 2010 3:26 pm<br>
To: "James M. Bladel" <<a
href="mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: "PEDNR " <<a
href="mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
James, as mentioned on the call, I didn't read this proposal as a new period
but as a replacement for the one we have been talking about. That pus it in a
different light.<br><br> Regarding the 30-75, prior to the practice of
transferring/auctioning names (but after the EDDP), a name would either be
renewed or deleted. It could be deleted by the registrar immediately after
expiration, but under EDDP, it could not be held for more than 45 days
following expiration. Once deleted, it would go into RGP for 30 days. So a
registrant had a total between 30 days (if the registrar deleted immediately)
and 75 days (if the registrar held onto the name for the full 45 days).<br><br>
Alan<br><br> At 02/11/2010 01:55 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:<br> <blockquote
type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Alan and Team:<br><br> I'm not clear on the
"30-75 days" example given below. Currently, there is nothing in
consensus policy to prevent a registrar from deleting a name -immediately- upon
expiration. So offering a 5-day window backed by policy is indeed
significant.<br><br> And let's keep in mind that the intention behind this
proposed grace period is to allow for mis-communication, billing errors,
differing holiday calendars, etc. Anything greater than 5 days and we
are, in effect, requiring registrars to offer free services and disregarding
the responsibilities of the Registrant. Most registrars would likely opt
for immediate deletion to avoid these extra costs.<br><br> Looking forward to
our call.<br><br> J.<br><br> <dl> <dd>-------- Original Message --------<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR: A proposed path forward<br>
</dd><dd>From: Alan Greenberg <<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx";>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx</a> ><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Tue, November 02, 2010 12:48 pm<br> </dd><dd>To: "James M.
Bladel" <<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, "PEDNR "<br>
</dd><dd><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>
gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br><br> </dd><dd>James, thanks for getting this
going. There is some good stuff here, <br> </dd><dd>but as you can surely
imagine, in my view it does not really go far <br> </dd><dd>enough. I will make
a few comments below, but more will come.<br><br> </dd><dd>Alan<br><br>
</dd><dd>At 01/11/2010 03:12 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:<br><br>
</dd><dd>>Good afternoon, everyone.<br> </dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>>With our review of community feedback complete, several of us on
the WG<br> </dd><dd>>have been working to synthesize all the various
positions and opinions<br> </dd><dd>>expressed on PEDNR into a compromise
proposal.<br> </dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>>The objectives
of putting this forward are:<br> </dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>>(1) Provide
additional safeguards for registrants to guard against the<br>
</dd><dd>>inadvertent loss of registrations, secured by Consensus
Policy.<br> </dd><dd>>(2) Provide some consistency in the registrant's
experience with<br> </dd><dd>>expiring names.<br> </dd><dd>>(3)
Accomplish (1) and (3) in a manner that does not unnecessarily<br>
</dd><dd>>disrupt the numerous commercial and non-commercial activities in
our<br> </dd><dd>>industry.<br> </dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>>With these in
mind, we submit the following slate of proposals for your<br>
</dd><dd>>consideration.<br> </dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>>Grace Period (Secured by Consensus Policy)<br>
</dd><dd>>-------------------------------------------<br>
</dd><dd>>Guaranteed five-day registrar grace period (what to call it will
need to<br> </dd><dd>>be determined so as to avoid confusion with similarly
named periods)<br> </dd><dd>>following expiration. Only the RAE can
recover/renew name during this<br> </dd><dd>>period. While the name will not
go to auction during this period, it<br> </dd><dd>>could be explicitly
deleted by the Registrar, which commences the RGP.<br><br> </dd><dd>Before
registrars began the practice of transferring and auctioning <br>
</dd><dd>domains at expiration, all registrants had a 30-75 day period within
<br> </dd><dd>which to recover their expired name. Typically it was 60. This WG
has <br> </dd><dd>decided not to question the registrar right/ability to do
this (which <br> </dd><dd>does earn a lot of money for some), but that is no
reason to reduce <br> </dd><dd>the time that a registrant has to recover. That
is where the 30 came <br> </dd><dd>from, since it was the absolute minimum
before. And that required <br> </dd><dd>deleting the name on day 1 of
expiration, a practice that few registrars had.<br><br> </dd><dd>So, my
question to counter Jeff's is not why more time, but rather <br> </dd><dd>why
is it that registrars feel that REDUCING the amount of time by a <br>
</dd><dd>factor of 6 to 15 times is reasonable.<br><br> </dd><dd>I do
appreciate that this proposal says that registrars will delay <br>
</dd><dd>beginning auctions until the period has expired. It is a nice idea.
<br> </dd><dd>But this is not really of importance from the point of view of
our <br> </dd><dd>charter, which is considering whether the name is
recoverable. Some <br> </dd><dd>registrars have a practice of starting auctions
very early, but the <br> </dd><dd>terms are t hat if a RAE comes in and says
they want it back, the <br> </dd><dd>auction/sale is cancelled or
reversed.<br><br> </dd><dd>>Renewal notices (Secured by Consensus
Policy)<br> </dd><dd>>---------------------------------------------<br>
</dd><dd>>Requirement to send (by a method at each registrar's discretion)
a<br> </dd><dd>>minimum of one renewal notice to registrant no later than 10
days prior<br> </dd><dd>>to expiry, and a second notice the day prior to the
expiry date<br> </dd><dd>>notifying the RAE that the 5-day registrar grace
period will begin the<br> </dd><dd>>following day.<br><br> </dd><dd>This is
basically in line with what we have discussed before, but I <br> </dd><dd>would
like to understand why the first notice may come so late, given <br>
</dd><dd>the statements that have been made about monthly bill processing and
<br> </dd><dd>the time it may take for a registrant to process a
payment.<br><br> </dd><dd>> Whois<br> </dd><dd>>-----<br> </dd><dd>>No
changes to Whois recommended.<br><br> </dd><dd>This was one of the few things
that we had almost complete consensus <br> </dd><dd>on, so I am a bit surprised
that it is now off the table. I do <br> </dd><dd>recognize that it is one of
the few things that we have been talking <br> </dd><dd>about that would require
a significant work effort on behalf of all <br> </dd><dd>registrars and
registries, but I think that taking it off the table <br> </dd><dd>(as opposed
to a long phase-in time) is premature.<br><br> </dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>>Community Education<br>
</dd><dd>>-------------------<br> </dd><dd>>Registrars:<br>
</dd><dd>>Best practice recommendation: A registrar will design and host
a<br> </dd><dd>>neutral-content site with important information about how to
properly<br> </dd><dd>>steward a domain name and prevent unintended
loss.<br> </dd><dd>>Registrar should provide on its web site, and send to
registrant in<br> </dd><dd>>separate e-mail to registrant immediately
following initial<br> </dd><dd>>registration, a set of instructions for
keeping domain name records<br> </dd><dd>>current and for lessening the
chance of mistakenly allowing the name to<br> </dd><dd>>expire.<br><br>
</dd><dd>No problem here.<br><br> </dd><dd>><br> </dd><dd>>ALAC:<br>
</dd><dd>>Budget time/money/resources to public education campaign to
encourage<br> </dd><dd>>renewals and prevent unwanted loss of a
name.<br><br> </dd><dd>Not sure this fits as an ALAC task (all the more so
because we HAVE <br> </dd><dd>no money and minimal non-volunteer resources) but
certainly ICANN <br> </dd><dd>with involvement of ALAC is reasonable.<br><br>
</dd><dd>As I said, more to come, since there are a number of issues that have
<br> </dd><dd>been omitted completely (such as web sites going dark or
redirected), <br> </dd><dd>but that will wait.<br><br> </dd><dd>Alan<br><br>
</dd></dl></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|