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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mason, this is the par that *I* don't understand. You say that this 
is something that "most (if not all) registrars do not have such an 
option today". My understanding from our initial survey is that all 
registrars who replied (which constitutes a large majority of 
registrations) who do not immediately delete currently do exactly the 
type of out-of-band signalling that we are talking about - 
redirecting the web site and in most cases, disabling traffic to other ports.
Alan

At 18/01/2011 01:22 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
> [...]
> 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.
Mason, this is the part that *I* don't understand. You say that this 
is something that "most (if not all) registrars do not have such an 
option today". My understanding from our initial survey is that ALL 
registrars who replied (which constitutes a large majority of 
registrations) who do not immediately delete currently do exactly the 
type of out-of-band signalling that we are talking about - 
redirecting the web site and in most cases, disabling traffic to other ports.
> 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?
I think that this type of dialog is useful, but I see four problems 
with this particular suggestion.
1. There is no provision for a PDP reporting and having a consensus 
policy implemented and then going back and doing more work.
2. It would require expensive before and after data which is not 
available to us (unless there is a major change).
3. Based on past experience, it would take far more than 6 months to 
adopt the policy, get it approved by the Board, implemented and then 
measures - probably more like 1.5-2 years. There is little chance of 
restarting the process at that point.
4. Even with data from the large players, it says nothing about the 
fringe players which is largely where problems have been reported.
Alan