RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify, it doesn't have to be an email address, could be a mobile
number you send a text too, given that number portability is much better
supported these days - people do not abandon mobile numbers like they do
email addresses. Another (more complicated) option would be an instant
messenger request.

This is actually making me think of some cool product helper tools for
registrars, but I digress,..........

Any of this however, is significant work(and a text message cost $$$) on the
part of Registrars, and should be a best practise, since really, the
registrant should take some responsibility for keeping their contact info up
to date.   Having said that, I can see from this thread, that for some
registrars, this would be a customer service differentiator that they
already offer some form of.

Michael Young

M:+1-647-289-1220


-----Original Message-----
From: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight [mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: January-10-11 2:45 PM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Jeff Eckhaus; PEDNR; Michael Young; Mike O'Connor; Alan Greenberg
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal

While I fully understand the idea behind this there are a couple of issues
with it

Based on our own experiences a LOT of people use an alternate email address
when they register a domain name. Unfortunately in many cases they abandon
that email address at some point, but never bother updating it in the
system. If the email address doesn't even bounce there's no way of knowing
that the email address is no longer being checked and with free email
services giving away so much disk space these days the old "mailbox full"
type error isn't even going to work 

(FYI this is the same for hosting accounts as it is for domains)

Making something like this mandatory would cause a lot of headaches if you
have resellers (which a lot of registrars do).. unless you change your
entire API so that the extra contact point is mandatory, but I can see that
causing a lot of headaches and simply not working ...




On 10 Jan 2011, at 19:37, James M. Bladel wrote:

> 
> Agree, and this is similar to an idea that we discussed early on in 
> the PEDNR effort:  The idea that at least one contact email cannot be 
> "self-referencing" the same domain name.  But I support Jeff's 
> recommendation that this should be (and in fact, is already) a best 
> practice for registrars.
> 
> J.
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
> From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, January 10, 2011 1:20 pm
> To: Michael Young <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor"
> <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'PEDNR'" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 (by 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 end 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.
>> So
>> no net gain with mandatory policies that darken the domain.
>> 
>> 
>> The real goal is getting the attention of the registrant.
>> 
>> An idea:
>> 
>> Perhaps a reasonable alternative would be that registrars, at the 
>> time of registration, consistently request a backup/emergency contact 
>> that also gets 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 registered domain, but is something 
>> more/different than the standard registrant contact object. This 
>> contact would explicitly not be a registry contact object, it would 
>> be a matter between the registrar and the registrant for backup 
>> communication during the expiration process.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Michael Young
>> 
>> M:+1-647-289-1220
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: January-10-11 1:22 PM
>> To: Alan Greenberg
>> Cc: PEDNR
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
>> 
>> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> 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 to that signal.
>> 
>> -- i'm willing to listen to ideas other than "the domain going dark" 
>> as the 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 past.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I would appreciate you 
>>> forwarding
>> and comments to the list prior to the meeting.
>>> 
>>> Alan
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone 651-647-6109
>> fax 866-280-2356
>> web http://www.haven2.com
>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>> Google,
>> etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845