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: "Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:22:38 -0800
This is a very key difference. You say:
I would appreciate having alternatives proposed that address what is
perceived as a real need by the user community
The word PERCEIVED is important. In essence, what you're saying is "I
think there's a problem. I can't substantiate it. If you don't like
what I propose, then do this: design, pay for, test, tolerate
disruption, explain to customers, receive customer service calls, in a
format you don't and maybe never have supported...all for a problem that
only a few people think is really there."
You are asking us to take on a very expensive, time-consuming and
expensive process that impact our lives and our customers' lives for an
issue that has never been adequately substantiated.
I think until that perspective is well understood, we're going to
continue to have a hard time making progress. Additional proposals or
system designs aren't the answer because all of them represent very
expensive overkill. We've made the point numerous times and have been
ignored or brushed off, and quite frankly, it's angering the people on
whom you're putting this responsibility. All too often we will
patiently explain why something may not be as easy as it looks, but all
we hear is "I'm not convinced." We're being asked to not only disprove
a negative but to build a fix for a non-problem.
Don't read my tone as one of difficulty -- I simply believe this is
something that needs to be heard and respected.
Now, I agree that we're close and believe we can close this off. I
think the obstacle to out-of-band notification is that most (if not all)
registrars do not have such an option today. Creating that option will
involve time, research, investment, testing and effort. Even with
policy I suspect you will not get 100% compliance because that type of
service will not be within the abilities of all registrars; further, if
blackouts are included, you will get attorneys for registrars objecting
very loudly to that option, and that would slow things even further.
Perhaps the way forward is to agree to the registrars' proposal for
ten-day availability, an additional notification for current methods
(pre-expiry), education and measurement (all of which ALSO involves
time, investment, testing, resources and effort). A team of registrars
could investigate out-of-band notifications for important criteria
(cost, effectiveness, etc.) and report to this WG in, say, six months.
That would give us a chance to measure effectiveness of the steps in our
proposal as well.
What do you think?
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:25 AM
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Where we are now.
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.