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

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We are so close to resolving this.  The only blocking issue is the out of
band communication method.  

We don't have a good solution for that concern ("good": meaning : effective,
does more good than harm, legally acceptable, does NOT require Registrars
raising prices to cover costs and impacting retail prices for Registrants). 

Really I am not sure what problem we are still trying to solve here with the
out of band communication method but here's my understanding of goals:

1) Provide Registrants a reasonable chance to recover domain names they've
failed to renew prior to RGP and the subsequent higher fees that are
incurred with RGP.
2) Ensuring that Registrants have a guaranteed last opportunity to recover a
domain that's deleted.

It seems the current proposals, minus the darkening requirement, meets both
these goals.  

1) is solved via improved communications agreed to AND  Registrars
guarantying the ability of  Registrants to retrieve their domain for 10 days
after expiry - creates a very reasonable chance to recover domains and would
solve (according to Go-daddy stats) 99% of late renewals.  
2) is already solved by RGP (which does take the name dark), as long as the
original Registrant has the ability to reclaim the domain from RGP.

If the real concern here is that some Registrars are going to harvest
valuable domain names that have expired for secondary markets, then this is
also reasonably solved by better communications and a guarantee of being
able to retrieve the domain for 10 days.  If you are trying to solve the use
case where a Registrar waits the 10 days without changing resolution on the
valuable domain and does not notify their Registrant of expiration, then
harvests the valuable domain - then you are really talking about addressing
the agreement between Registrars and ICANN and subsequent compliance, not
developing operational mechanisms.  There is no effective operational fix to
that case, it always has been, and always will be, a legal discussion.  

I am working on statistics regarding name darkening right now (from RGP),
taken from .INFO which I will share with the group. 


Michael Young

M:+1-647-289-1220

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: January-18-11 2:34 PM
To: Mason Cole; PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Where we are now.


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