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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 10/01/2011 02:08 PM, Michael Young 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.
I would really like to understand how an interruption will cause more 
problems than the domain completely disappearing. Ultimately, the 
domain will need to be renewed or deleted within 45 days of 
expiration. If it is deleted, it will (for most gTLDs) go into RGP 
and that causes the darkening and it is fine with me.
If a registrar wants to renew it on my behalf, even though I have not 
left a valid credit card or contacted them, that is also fine with 
me. Is this normal practice? If not, the domain will ultimately not 
be usable by the original registrant.
> 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?
I strongly support such mechanisms. But I agree with the folks who 
said that mandating them may be difficult. Moreover, we have said 
from the very beginning of this PDP that we are looking to have 
policy that compels ALL registrar to provide reasonable notice to 
registrants and not just the larger ones who may take extra pains to 
do it right.
Alan


> 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.)