Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Where we are now.

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

Registrars are the only ones with actual data, and it is clear that 
there is little interest in sharing it with us at this stage.
There has been a general belief that a blackout (including 
redirection) is an effective way of catching a registrant's attention 
(either directly or through their users) when all of the traditional 
notifications have failed. There are certainly plenty of examples. 
Most registrars do this now. Even those who have been more generous 
with offering an extended grace period say they eventually do this if 
they truly want to serve their customers. I understand that we now 
are working on the assumption that there are no "bad guys", but for a 
moment, pretend that there were. A (for instance) 10 day guarantee 
with no blackout is a perfect way to capture a domain name with the 
user having no recourse.
I have yet to hear what the problems are with the proposal I made.

Alan

At 18/01/2011 01:02 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> Alan,
>
> 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 community" .
> 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 actual problem.
> 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 domain names;
> 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.
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On 1/18/11 8:25 AM, "Alan Greenberg" 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> 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.