Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional proposed recommendations

[Ron Wickersham <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i think the list of recommendations below is constructive to outline some
items that appear from a participant's view as possible with some tweaking
to refine issues that have been raised in the weekly deliberations.

i'm not sure i understand the other proposal on the table completely, but
it appears to be a consensus policy proposal that adds a new 5-day grace
period just post expiration.   i can generally support that proposal as an
additional policy but do not feel it is a substitute for the multiple
issues that have arisen in public comments and WG deliberations.   the
goal stated for the new 5-day grace period to be consistent between all
registrars is definitely commendable since that is an issue that comes up
often in our discussions, and a necessary element if education, which has
been advanced to assist registrants, is to have any chance of success.

i've included comments inline below...

-ron

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> To the possible list of recommendations, I would like to add the following. 
> Although I have consulted with a number of people on this, and have general 
> support, I am submitting this on my own behalf (and clearly not wearing the 
> Chair hat).
> These recommendations are all in line with the non-registrar WG survey 
> results and also with the outcomes of the user survey.
> With one exception to be noted, based on the results of the registrar survey 
> we did at the start of the PDP, the recommendations should not require 
> significant changes in business processes or massive changes to their 
> procedures (at least as far as I understand). Some of these replicate 
> (perhaps with an added twist) what was in the proposal tabled by James. It 
> does introduce a new ICANN process.
> Consensus Policies - Registrars
>
> =	Registrar must allow recovery of domain name by the registrant of 
> record prior to expiration (RAE) for at least a period of thirty (30) days 
> after expiration or until the name is deleted, whichever comes first. 
> <Rationale: Before the registrars started transferring and auctioning domains 
> at expiration, all registrants had a 30-75 day period within which to 
> recover. Typically it was 60. This WG has decided not to question their right 
> to do this (which does earn a lot of money for some), but that is no reason 
> to reduce the time that a registrant has to recover. That is where the 30 
> came from, since it was the absolute minimum before. And that required 
> deleting the name on day 1 of expiration, a practice that few registrars had. 
> Note that this version of the guaranteed period does NOT place restrictions 
> on Registrars about when they may begin a sale/auction, but does restrict 
> when they can finalize it. This is in line with the current practices 
> described by registrars under which I believe all registrars surveyed gave 
> registrants at least 30 days to recover.>
even though i was in favor of a longer period, i can support 30 days as a
minimum.

> =	Registrar must send at least two renewal notifications alerting the 
> registrant to the upcoming expiration. [Exceptions allowed - see below] <As 
> per James' proposal but allowing exceptions.>
> =	If only two renewal notifications are sent, one must be sent one 
> month prior to expiration (±4 days) and one must be sent one week prior to 
> expiration (±3 days). If more that two alert notifications are sent, the 
> timing of two of them must be comparable to the timings specified. 
> [Exceptions allowed]
> =	At least one notification must be sent to the registrant after 
> expiration. {The timing to be specified.} [Exceptions allowed]
if the new 5-day grace extension is incorporated suggest that notification
be a part of entering the 5-day grace extention, or in other words, that
the 5-day grace period begin when the notification is sent, and a
mandatory notification be required to be sent at the end of the 5-day
grace extension.

> =	If notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the 
> domain in question, and delivery had been interrupted by post-expiration 
> actions, post-expiration notifications must be sent to some other contact 
> point associated with the registrant if one exists.
> =	Notifications must include "push" methods in addition to any "pull" 
> methods - not solely be via methods that require logging into the registrar's 
> system to retrieve them (ie the Registrar's Domain Management Panel).
> =	The registration agreement and registrar web site (if one is used) 
> must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and 
> post-expiration notifications.
> =       Web site or sites reached via the domain name must not longer be
                                                           ^^^ no
> reachable through the use of the domain name within 3-5 days after 
> expiration. [Exceptions allowed] <Note that this and the next item alter the 
> intent of the Autorenew Grace Period, but it is exactly what most Registrars 
> do today, and there seems to be widespread belief that this is the only 
> relatively fail-safe method of catching the RAE's attention. The exception 
> process will allow Registrars with other business models and other 
> notification methods to carry on their businesses without change.>
> =	All non-web services must cease to function within 3-5 days after 
> expiration. [Exceptions allowed]
i would suggest specifying a fixed number rather than a range, and would
substitute "within 5 days" for "within 3-5 days".   when a range is 
stated it is not clear if the cessation should not be before 3 days or
not, and the implied range of "within 5 days" is "within 0 to 5 days".

is there is problem with 0 to 5 days?

> =	If registrar allows any web access to the domain name after the 
> "disable" date, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has 
> expired and give instructions to the RAE on how to recover the domain.
suggest that the wording be "If registrar provides any web..." since 
this only occurs when the registrant has a hosting agreement with the
registrar/provider.   when hosting is separate, removing the DNS delegation
in the root servers makes the registrant's own server or separately
contracted server unreachable after DNS caches expire.

> =	The price charged for post-expiration recovery must be explicitly 
> stated in the registration agreement or on the Registrar's web site (if any). 
> This price must also be provided to the RAE at registration time and when 
> pre-and post-expiration renewal notices are provided. <Rationale: This is 
> comparable to the current requirement regarding RGP redemption pricing.>
may i suggest "or" be repaced with "and".

> =	Modify WHOIS to clearly indicate whether a domain has been renewed 
> from a registrant:registrar point of view. Specifically, it should clearly 
> identify a domain in the Auto Renew Grace Period which has not been 
> explicitly renewed by the registrant <This proposal is the one that would 
> require significant effort on behalf of all registrars and registries. If 
> adopted, it would require significant phase-in time which should not impact 
> the schedule of the other items.>
i believe that this is the most contentious aspect, yet in my view it is
what has been identified as the most confusing issue and deserves our
group's best effort to advance a solution that addresses this.

> =	In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that 
> ICANN has published web content providing educational materials with respect 
> to registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle, and such 
> content is developed in consultation with Registrars, Registrars who have a 
> web presence must point to it. [Exceptions allowed]
i believe that this is the second most important area the WG can accomplish.
this education aspect was identified early on, and was 1/3 of the mission
of Internic, before the web was invented and ICANN existed.   it fits well
within the function and mission of ICANN and by including education it helps
focus deliberation of policies so that they can be explained with reasonable
educational materials to inform those affected.

> =	All Registrars must offer the RGP for gTLDs where the Registry offers 
> it.
> =	All RAA provisions applicable to Registrars dealing with 
> registrar-registrant interactions must be carried out by either the registrar 
> or, at their option, by a reseller. In the latter case, Registrars are still 
> responsible for any breaches.
this is a very important aspect and i've heard no disagreement within the
WG's deliberations to suggest otherwise.

> Registrar Exceptions
---snip---

no need now for comments on the items below, since some of them are in
more tentative form and some are dependent on reaching consensus above.

-ron