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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mason.

I have a VERY operational background and really don't live in an 
ivory  tower. I took the discussion to heart about the difficulty of 
using those other communications methods and had no intent to suggest 
that they be mandated.
I also understood the non-acceptance of a mandated darkening (I sort 
of like that word!) by registrars. However, I took the rejection as a 
rejection of a policy to go dark oat a specific time in the 
post-expiration process. This was an objection (a reasonable one) 
that I understood to be because darkening at a specific time could be 
counter to a registrar's business model (perhaps business continuity 
is more important to them and they wanted to give FAR longer grace 
period before taking action).
It was for that reason the I originally suggested a exception 
process. That process was rejected as being to complex and confusing 
and possibly to easy to game.
So my thinking evolved and I came up with the present proposal, to 
darken, but at a time determined by the registrar. It could be 
immediately after expiration (as some registrars do now). Or much 
later if the registrar wants to. The only condition was that there 
had to be a period of darkening prior to the domain name disappearing 
and no longer being renewable.
Alan

At 19/01/2011 11:34 AM, Mason Cole wrote:
> Sorry.  If we take darkening the site out of play, which some registrars
> will prefer (see previous case as discussed by Michael), I believe there
> are few other options available today -- e.g., by text, by post mail, by
> phone, etc.
>
> Other registrars on the WG, please correct me if I'm wrong.  But it's
> those non-existent methods that would be expensive to engineer and
> execute.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:34 AM
> 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