Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
- To: Michael Young <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:20:22 -0800
This is a program that we have in place at eNom and have found it to be
successful, when the registrant enters in the supplemental information.
There are many people who chose to leave this field blank, which is their
choice and that is OK. I am not OK making this a requirement which I do
not believe is part Michael's proposal, but just want to be clear if that
is brought up
On 1/10/11 11:08 AM, "Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Guys here's a thought on a possible compromise that might add value.
>Mikey and I had extensive conversations and noted that darkening a name
>a mandatory policy) can solve for one edge case but actually can create an
>equivalent amount of harm to other registrants. So unfortunately at the
>of the day you may have saved a small amount of registrants from losing a
>domain, but you likely just caused service interruption to an equal number
>of registrants (or greater) that would never have suffered it otherwise.
>no net gain with mandatory policies that darken the domain.
>The real goal is getting the attention of the registrant.
>Perhaps a reasonable alternative would be that registrars, at the time of
>registration, consistently request a backup/emergency contact that also
>notified during the expiration process. That contact mechanism would have
>to be at the registrar's operational discretion since it would need to
>support automation. It could be something like a cell number for texting,
>it could be something like an email address that CANNOT BE in the
>domain, but is something more/different than the standard registrant
>object. This contact would explicitly not be a registry contact object,
>would be a matter between the registrar and the registrant for backup
>communication during the expiration process.
>From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: January-10-11 1:22 PM
>To: Alan Greenberg
>Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
>i'm finally fully back into the regular routine after a great trip through
>South America and the usual holiday madness.
>here's where i'm at;
>-- Berry dragged me through the data and i realized that the data wasn't
>telling me what i thought it was -- so i'm less enthusiastic about 10 days
>than i was in Cartagena.
>-- i want a clear signal sent to the world (not just the registrant) that
>the domain has expired and sufficient time for the registrant to respond
>-- i'm willing to listen to ideas other than "the domain going dark" as
>signal, but i remain deeply skeptical of any signal that is sent based on
>contact information, or sent by the same channels that have failed in the
>On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I would appreciate you
>and comments to the list prior to the meeting.
>- - - - - - - - -
>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
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.