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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan:

It wasn't about being first or last, but rather trying to identify the last 
common point of  consensus, beyond which opinions diverge. Most agree that more 
could be done, but positions contain fewer  common elements the more we 
discuss...

J.


James M. Bladel
------
Sent via Blackberry
(Please excuse typos and brevity)
Mobile:  +1 319 331 9268

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:14:53 
To: James M. Bladel<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Michele Neylon :: 
Blacknight<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: PEDNR<gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional proposed recommendations

James, You did get your proposal on the table 
first, but I don't see that as a reason for not 
allowing any other suggested ends from being considered.

For the record, *I* have no intent of having this 
go on for another year or more.

Alan

At 12/11/2010 09:06 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>I'm concerned that we are allowing the Perfect 
>to become the enemy of the Good.
>
>Many of us have the stated goal of moving this 
>PDP to some sort of meaningful conclusion, with 
>tangible outcomes to show for our work.  I'm 
>convinced that the original proposal does this, 
>while also providing an opportunity to 
>study/measure/quantify the issue further and 
>leaving the door open to future work.
>
>But if we continue to bolt on new proposals, I'm 
>concerned that the consensus we've worked to 
>build will evaporate, and we will be working on 
>this for another 12-18 months, with no 
>assurances that the result will be any better 
>than what we have on the table now.
>
>Just my thoughts before the weekend.
>
>J.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional proposed recommendations
>From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" 
><<mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Fri, November 12, 2010 7:50 am
>To: PEDNR <<mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>Alan
>
>Your email confused me
>
>Either you are advocating a policy change or you aren't.
>
>The "exceptions allowed" concept seems to break that badly
>
>With respect to the specific items you 
>mentioned, I'm sure others will have comments of 
>their own, so I'll just limit myself to the ones that I have clear reactions to
>
>To start with this entire PDP has been run on 
>the basis of there being a problem, however 
>there is little or no factual evidence of there being one.
>
>Any "cases" that people seem to be able to find 
>to point to are related to registrants not 
>paying for renewals (either intentionally or otherwise)
>
>In the IRTP WG, for example, we were able to 
>work with actual data from ICANN's compliance 
>team who had collated a spreadsheet itemising 
>and classifying actual complaints submitted by the public
>
>
>
>On 9 Nov 2010, at 15:34, 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.
>
>I'm not sure that's factually correct
>
>If it is please provide links to tangible data
>
>
>
> > 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.>
> >
> > =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.>
>
>Rejected.
>Either everyone does it or nobody does it.
>
>You can't expect it to be a policy for some and not for others
>
>
> >
> > =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 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.
>
>We have no way of knowing this until we send the 
>notification and we probably can't really do anything about it anyway ..
> >
> > =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).
>
>Redundant. You already specified that notifications be "sent"
>
> >
> > =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.
>
>Disagree
>The key thing is that we send them in a "sane" 
>manner. Forcing us to specify exactly how could have secondary consequences
>
> >
> > =Web site or sites reached via the domain 
> name must not longer be 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]
> >
> > =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.
> >
> > =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
>
>That is not practically possible.
>
>If you register a domain today for 10 years 
>there is no way that the registrar can know what 
>the registry is going to be charging them to 
>renew the domain in 10 years time. It is wholly 
>unreasonable, impractical and impossible to 
>expect registrars to be locked into providing 
>pricing at day 0 that is valid at day 3650
>
>Unless of course you want us all to start 
>charging say $10k / year for a .com ?
>
>
>
> > and when pre-and post-expiration renewal 
> notices are provided. <Rationale: This is 
> comparable to the current requirement regarding RGP redemption pricing.>
>
>No it isn't
>
> >
> > =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.>
>
>While I'd personally love to see this at some 
>point, it's probably best left to a more comprehensive review of WHOIS.
>I can't see this being supported by registries or registrars
>
> >
> > =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]
>
>Again with the exceptions
>
>Either we all have to do something or we don't
>
>The alternative is that you admit that we're all 
>adults and are capable of adopting "best practices" ..
>
> >
> > =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.
>
>We already are under the 2009 RAA
>
>
> >
> >
> > Registrar Exceptions
> >
> > For all provisions where Exceptions are 
> allowed, the Registrar may submit a request to 
> ICANN to substitute some other mechanism 
> instead of the one(s) specified, and must 
> demonstrate how this alternative mechanism will 
> provide at least the same protection while 
> better fitting to the Registrar's business 
> model or services. Such requests will be 
> reviewed by an impartial panel (similar to that 
> provided with the Registry RSTEP process, or 
> perhaps even the same panel) and shall be acted 
> upon in a timely manner by ICANN.
>
>No.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Consensus Policy - Registries
> >
> > =All unsponsored gTLD Registries shall offer 
> the RGP. For currently existing gTLDs that do 
> not currently offer the RGP, a transition 
> period shall be allowed. All new gTLDs must 
> offer the RGP. There could be an automatic 
> exemption for TLDs that do not sell domains at 
> all (what has been referred to in the VI group as SRSU).
> >
> > =Modify WHOIS to clearly indicate whether a 
> domain has been renewed from a 
> registrant:registrar point of view. <With caveat as noted above.>
> >
> >
> > Registrar Best Practices
> >
> > This could perhaps be implemented in one of two ways.
> >
> > a. The Registrar community can develop these 
> Best Practices including some methodology which 
> will give registrars an incentive to implement them if applicable. or
>
>Why would we give ourselves incentives?
>
>Sorry - I don't follow that
>
> >
> > b. ICANN can develop these Best Practices and 
> provide a financial incentive to registrars who follow them.
> >
> > These are not meant to be verbatim Best 
> Practices but will serve as a basis for their full development.
> >
> > =Issue a warning if contact addresses use the 
> domain being registered / renewed / updated.
>
>Technically difficult if not impossible to implement
> >
> > =Expiration-related provisions of 
> registration agreement clear and understandable 
> by a non-lawyer, non-domain-professional.
> >
> > =Provide notification of impact of not having 
> sufficient accurate contact information at time 
> of registration, renewal, ICANN-mandated Whois 
> update notice. Require positive acknowledgement if via web.
>
>And if they don't acknowledge it what then?
>
> >
> > =Request at least two different modes of 
> contact information (example: e-mail and SMS) 
> with explanation why two are needed.
>
>Technically problematic and impossible to 
>implement across all registrars and other channels
>
> >
> >
> > Other issues to consider:
> >
> > =Renaming the Autorenew Grace Period to make 
> it clear that it is not the Automatic Renewal 
> option offered by some Registrars to registrants.
> >
> >
>
>Mr Michele Neylon
>Blacknight Solutions
>Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>ICANN Accredited Registrar
><http://www.blacknight.com>http://www.blacknight.com/
>http://blog.blacknight.com/
><http://blacknight.mobi>http://blacknight.mobi/
>http://mneylon.tel
>Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>US: 213-233-1612
>UK: 0844 484 9361
>Locall: 1850 929 929
>Twitter: <http://twitter.com/mneylon>http://twitter.com/mneylon
>
>PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & 
>hosting: <http://domainoffers.me>http://domainoffers.me/
>-------------------------------
>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>