<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
- From: Ron Wickersham <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:26:02 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Michael Young wrote:
Alan I am happy to walk through the use case if you give me a call. I will
try now though in email
In short many registrars vary expiration behaviour based on the individual
circumstances around the customer.
Take me for example, I have a number of godaddy email accounts that expire a
long time after the domain they are associated with. In my case Godaddy
would not want to darken my domain by some brute force policy just because I
failed to renew. They would more likely leave me expired for an extended
period of time while they tried to track me down. Why? In my case (and many
others) the domain is a loss leader. They really want to keep me as a
customer.
there should be nothing in a reasonable policy to prevent a registrar from
keeping the a domain alive for entended period, even 6 or 7 years so long
as the original registrant is ultimately in control of the domain.
what a reasonable policy has to dictate is the circumstance at expiry
if the registrar chooses to abandon the customer immediately, or in the
case of a registrar who keeps a domain active for the customer relation
indicated by you above, if that registrar finally decides that he no
longer wants to pay the registry for the domain and at that point the
policy that gets attention of the registrant by going dark comes into
effect.
so the reasonable policy does not inhibit registrar initiatives and extra
services, but serves as a final protection for the registrant when the
alternative contact measures taken by the registrar have failed...note
that this does not require any extrordinary measures, sending a currier
to the address, phone calls, etc...every registrar can choose how much
effort they want to expend if the contact e-mail address hasn't produced
a renewal.
The use case where it was valuable to darken a domain to get someone's
attention is out of date by about 6-7 years. Even then I am not sure it
would have worked, registrants some years ago often parked domains for a
number of reasons: speculation, haven't decided how to launch associated
online services yet, protective/preventative registration and others. They
often forgot about even active domains because the internet was such as new
animal in the average person's life.
Nowadays it's pretty different. There are comparatively few parked domains,
domains are either being actively used in PPC, for primary web services or
are forwarded to other primary web services. Darkening a domain used for
anything other than primary web services would likely not get the
registrant's attention anyways.
on the web that i use, domains may not be "parked" but i certainly run
into lots which are not really in "active" use for a purpose related to
the domain name...they display a page about searches, etc. and many offer
that the domain "may" be for sale.
In short, we need to recognize that if the goal is to help the most
registrants, the use cases indicate that a mandatory darkening of the domain
prior to RGP is likely to hurt more Registrants than it helps. It's like
robbing from the poor to give to the poor - doesn't really get us ahead.
i remain unconvinced that mandatory darkening prior to RGP harms more
registrants than it helps. but if i've misunderstood how it does or
if furthere arguments support that position i'm all ears. i am not
inflexibly bound to the idea that the current practice of virtually all
major registrars for 30 days prior to deletion and consequently "darkening"
of the domain is bad for registrants and that putting the domain up for
auction in a shorter time following expiration is better in most cases
for the registrant. teach me how the ten day and non-darkening policy
helps registrants and i'm willing to change my position and support it,
but i need to be taught.
-ron
Michael Young
M:+1-647-289-1220
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: January-10-11 3:30 PM
To: Michael Young; 'Mike O'Connor'
Cc: 'PEDNR'
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments on GoDaddy data and proposal
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.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|