RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposal regarding Guaranteed renewal period and blackout
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposal regarding Guaranteed renewal period and blackout
- From: "Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:10:27 -0800
Mikey, and all --
At the beginning of this work group, registrars, who have operational
experience with dealing with millions of customers, pointed out to the
ALAC, which does not have any operational experience but plenty of
theories, incidences of accidental loss of a name is de minimis. Still,
for reasons the ALAC refused to or was unable to substantiate, the WG
insisted on developing policy for a phantom problem. Still registrars
participated in good faith.
Registrars stayed quiet while some in the WG framed this effort in terms
of "registrars who behave honorably" vs. those who were insinuated to
behave dishonorably. Whatever that meant. Still registrars
participated in good faith.
Registrars, in good faith, proposed a reasonable program for mitigating
the possibility -- not the proven fact -- of an accidental non-renewal.
It was dismissed. Still, registrars are participating in good faith.
ICANN's board has affirmed its commitment to fact-based policy
development. It has not affirmed its commitment to anecdote-based
policy development. And by ALAC's admission in Brussels, it will never
have more than anecdotal evidence for its actions. That is unfortunate
at best and irresponsible at worst. There is no evidence of any kind
provided by the instigation of this PDP that there is a problem. Yet
registrars participate in good faith.
We have been polite and patient. Patience with addressing a non-problem
is coming to an end. Perhaps WG members would like to open and operate
a registrar according to the rules it intends to impose on all other
registrars and assume the responsibility for and costs of hiring talent,
disrupting business operations, explaining new procedures to customers,
and the like, for an issue that is merely anecdote-based. At that
point, I would welcome its informed input. And would confer in good
So. If the WG would like a little positive help...refer KINDLY to the
completely reasonable proposition to deal with this problem entirely
BEFORE a name ever expires, and with the responsible process to
academically measure this "problem" before and after mitigating measures
are put into place.
There is a considered difference between pointing out realities of
technical difficulties in implementing design-by-committee processes and
being intentionally obstructionist. I for one would appreciate respect
for the difference.
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 6:33 PM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Mason Cole; alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposal regarding Guaranteed renewal
period and blackout
how about a little positive **help** here instead of this constant
refrain of "NO!" from registrars. or have all of you just gone on
strike, on all working groups, at the same time?
just one tiny constructive suggestion? pleeeeeaaaze?
On Jan 17, 2011, at 6:53 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> Mason and Team:
> I tend to agree. In fact, this could generate even more confusion for
> registrants, especially those who are unclear on what will happen to
> their names upon expiry.
> James M. Bladel
> Sent via iPad, using the free app from GoDaddy.com
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposal regarding Guaranteed renewal
> > period and blackout
> > From: "Mason Cole"
> > Date: Mon, January 17, 2011 6:26 pm
> > To: "Alan Greenberg" , "PEDNR"
> > Alan --
> > I have to say that I don't know how this could be engineered into
> > registrar systems, implemented, complied with and enforced as policy
> > ICANN. I don't know how it would reasonably be explained to our
> > customers in a way they could understand. I don't even think I
> > understand it myself.
> > Please take my input as polite and constructive, as it's intended. I
> > just don't believe, based on operational experience, that these
> > engineering minutiae will add clarity or prevent unintended losses.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:39 PM
> > To: PEDNR
> > Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposal regarding Guaranteed renewal
> > and blackout
> > As discussed during our last meeting, here is a proposal that may
> > satisfy the needs of registrars while still meeting the "blackout"
> > requirement that many users feel is needed.
> > Note that I personally am still not accepting the 10-day period
> > proposed by James, but I am interested in trying to close the other
> > differences that we have and perhaps this proposal will help move us
> > in the right direction.
> > I have thought about this proposal a fair amount since our meeting,
> > and what follows is a bit different from what I proposed then. This
> > difference, I believe, will allow it to be acceptable to all without
> > the need for any exceptions. For brevity, I am using the term
> > "blackout" to refer to the redirection or unavailability of port 80
> > traffic, and the lack of any response on all other ports.
> > ****
> > The domain name will be renewable by the RAE for a period of no less
> > than 10 full days after expiration, but in all cases for at least 8
> > full days after the domain name is blacked out. This
> > the Registrar may Delete the name at any time after expiration and
> > prior to renewal by the RAE.
> > ****
> > Examples:
> > - A registrar that blacks out the domain soon after expiration must
> > provide only 10 days.
> > - A registrar who chooses to give 30 days grace before blackout must
> > provide 38 days total.
> > - A registrar who chooses to give a registrant 6 months grace (for
> > whatever reason) can do so, but they must still blackout the name
> > prior to making it no longer renewable by the RAE.
> > - A registrar who wants to delete the name at any time once it has
> > expired and has not been renewed by the RAE may do so without notice
> > or delete. It will then go into the 30 day RGP. This will be true
> > during the 45 day ARGP or during the period that follows (assuming
> > the registrar has accepted the registry renewal but has still not
> > the RAE renew his/her contract with the registrar.
> > I look forward to hearing comments on this.
> > Alan
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,