[gnso-pednr-dt] User's concerns related to Post Expiry Domain Name Recovery.
Hello Alan Post Expiry Domain Name Recovery issues are actually a subcomponent of the overall issues of unbalanced business practices prevailing in the domain industry that need to be addressed. Post Expiry Domain Name recovery becomes difficult essentially because there are far greater benefits for the Registrars to let the domain name expire than to allow the Registrant sufficient time space to renew the domain name. Expired domain names go to the Registrar's silo, taken over and set to resolve to a Pay Per Click advertisements page, speculated and auctioned off for far greater profits. If expired domain names were to be released back into the system after a sufficient time gap for recovery, then there may not be any PEDNR issues. But the domain industry has operated this way for the last fifteen years and the business models of Registries and Registrars revolve around such business practices. It may be harsh on this business sector if ICANN were to force reforms that will reduce the business of domain name registration to a business of simple margins of a dollar or two per registration. At the same time, the hard questions that I have raised in the group ought not be completely suppressed. To summarize for record, the following reflect some of my concerns which are not reflected in any of the summaries that you have generated: Ownership of Domain Names: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00216.html Expiry Warnings: Registrars and Resellers: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00280.html Cost of Recovery during the Grace Period: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00243.html Registration Agreement and Need for a User Organization's involvement in negotiating terms: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00386.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00368.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00383.html One specific suggestion in this context was that users' groups such as at-Large and NCSG should look into / negotiate the terms of the average contract between the Registrar and Registrant. Email functionality: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00391.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00369.html Comments posted as part of my response to a Working Group Survey: PEDNR WG - Survey Results - 10 March 2010.pdf<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/attachments/post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg:20100310131934-0-12191/original/PEDNR%20WG%20-%20Survey%20Results%20-%2010%20March%202010.pdf> ( https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/attachments/post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg:20100310131934-0-12191/original/PEDNR%20WG%20-%20Survey%20Results%20-%2010%20March%202010.pdf) But the above document was 'reorganized' to remove some important comments with a new document that actually replaced the survey results as originally compiled as above. I raised my concerns in the following messages: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00339.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00439.html But these objections seem not to have been noted. Your recent proposals http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00529.html are nothing more than a verbose list of thin and marginal changes to the PEDNR situation. Your proposals are easy, too diluted and definitely distract the attention away from the real issues. This proposal would be perfectly alright if it had come from the Registrar stakeholder group. It would have naturally attained a balance by co-examining such a proposal with another user-centric proposal. But you present them more as a representative from ALAC with the result that user's concerns are reduced to a call for thin and marginal changes devoid of any real purpose or benefit. Sivasubramanian M http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz Attachment:
Sivasubramanian M pednr survey response february 28, 2010.pdf |