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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10 Jan 2011, at 20:25, Michael Young wrote:

> 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,..........


ROFL 

> 
> 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.


Yes - some already do it (or similar) for a fee

> 
> 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
> 
> 

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