Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Plans for the new year

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

I think you hit on a good point below when you discuss the method that
GoDaddy uses for auto-renewals and how that may not be representative of
every other registrar. While I think we should be grateful to James for
supplying the data, I think we need to be cautious about using it as a
guide or evidence.
I think it of as more of a data point that is useful, but not as a
representative of what happens to all registrants and we just need to be
mindful of that as we go forward.

Talk to everyone soon


Jeff





On 1/3/11 9:59 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>I would like to wish all WG members the very best for the New Year.
>
>Marika has pointed out to me that the deadline for publishing for the
>San Francisco meeting is 21 Feb 2011. That leaves us just 7 meetings
>(including today's) if we want to publish a final report in time for
>San Francisco (and I know that none of us want to extend this process
>more than that).
>
>To increase the challenge, I have a conflict part way into today's
>meeting, and would like to make this one a short one.
>
>For today's agenda, I would like to review the current status of our
>proposals and look at what we need to do to complete our work. Since
>I will have a *LOT* more time now that I am not an ALAC member and
>ALAC Vice-Chair, I will be happy to take the lead in drafting our
>formal proposals, but I will be looking for a couple of volunteers
>who I can bounce wording of of as I go along. Part of our work first
>is to decide what methodology we will use to determine the level of
>consensus that we will indicate in our final report for each
>recommendation. WG rules require that we not just use the people on
>an individual teleconference to do this, so we will likely have to
>resort to a poll of some sort open to all WG members.
>
>On one of our key points, there has been no list traffic on the note
>sent out be James during the Cartagena meeting regarding the GoDaddy
>statistics. The original message and a reply from me are in our
>mailing list archives, but due to embedded HTML, they are nearly
>unreadable, so I will resend them to the list after sending this message.
>
>Since this is a crucial part of our work, I think it demands that all
>WG members have an opportunity to discuss this.
>
>During the meeting there was a strong support for a 10-day period by
>the registrars present, as well as the one registry rep present.
>Among users, Mikey said he supported this as well, but wanted to
>ensure that there was still adequate time to recover after the domain
>was blacked out or were redirected (if I have mis-stated his
>reservation, I am sure he will correct it here). My concern was that
>the data did not at all confirm our general belief that the
>redirection of the address was a crucial way that registrants were
>reminded that the domain had expired and that may call into question
>whether the GoDaddy statistics are fully representative (since they
>typically offer registrant user auto-renewal as a default, perhaps
>they see more renewals at day one than some other registrars may). In
>any case, I think that it is important that all WG members consider
>this and I would like to schedule some time on next weeks (Jan 11)
>meeting to discuss this in full.
>
>Again, best wishes for 2011 and I hope that most of you can
>participate in todays call as well as those over the next two months.
>
>Alan
>


Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.