Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Where we are now.
- To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Where we are now.
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:02:03 -0800
I think this is an concise summary of where we are and agree we have made some
great progress, so in the goal of moving everything forward can we focus on the
question that I know I have, what is "perceived as a real need by the user
We are still working on an assumption that there is a significant problem in
the user community of unintentional loss. I think to solve the problem we need
to know what the actual problem is, to find out what the actual need is from
the user community. What is causing this unintentional loss? Is it not enough
notification? Is it because a Registrar is supposed to send 2 notices but is
not? Is it because the website does not "go dark"? If we cannot find out what
the problem is then we are walking around with solutions in search of the
Right now I think we have studied the questions this WG was supposed to
consider and and as you mentioned have come up with some solid solutions with
respect to language in the contracts and notices, but maybe our answer to
question 4 is no. There does not need to be additional measures. If Registrars
act the way they are supposed to and Compliance monitors them, then additional
measures are not needed
The Working Group shall then consider the following questions:
1 - Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired
2 - Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements
are clear and conspicuous enough;
3 - Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
4 - Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a
domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold
status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or
other options to be determined);
5- Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.
On 1/18/11 8:25 AM, "Alan Greenberg"
I would like to summarize where we are at the moment.
Assuming that agreements already made are not revoked, we have made
substantial progress. This has happened with (as I see it) ground
given up by all parties and we need to acknowledge that. Regardless
of the stumbling blocks still in our path, this is a good outcome.
We are working on one issue - the time allowed for guaranteed renewal
and how the domain behaves during that period. I thought that I had
made a useful proposal - simply stated and very flexible. But
apparently it is not viewed that way by registrars. I would
appreciate having alternatives proposed that address what is
perceived as a real need by the user community - as Mikey has put it,
an out-of-band signal of expiration.
As hard as it may be to believe, I too want policies that are both
enforceable and practical. And effective.
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.