I guess I have no problem having variation over registrars - that is
what makes the market competitive.
As it is now, you have a VERY varied range of what happens after
expiration. If you go back to the registrar survey (go to
https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi and it
is stashed under the Tuesday 23 March 2010 meeting), and look at rows
9 and 18, you will see the variations in when a domain goes dark and
how long it can be renewed.
Even if we were to adopt the simple 10-day rule, what registrars
actually give will surely still vary (unless you are suggesting that
all registrars will immediately cut back their renewal time to 10
days in lock-step). So we would again end up with a situation where
the post-expiry behaviour would vary across registrars AND be set in
policy? And as long as they all adhere to the policy and document
what they are offereing, that is (in my view) healthy.
In the RAA for Dummy's (forgive the attempt at humour - it has been a
long day), the explanation to users is simply (well simple is a
relative term).
* Registrars have varying policies on when for how long a domain can
be renewed after expiration. The minimum is 10 days.
* Registrars may redirect the domain name at varying times, but you
will always have at least 8 days to renew after it is redirected.
* Registrars may chose to delete the name before it is renewed. In
that case (for most gTLDs), the domain will stop working but can be
renewed through your registrar using a program called the "Redemption
Grace Period".
* Consult your Registrars documentation to see what THEIR specifics are.
The only difference between the simple 10-day rule and my proposal is
the second bullet.
Alan
At 20/01/2011 07:20 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
>Alan
>
>I'm trying to follow this and failing
>
>One of the stated goals with this WG was to give users
>predictability. I don't see how this is being achieved.
>
>Your proposal seems to only give that on a per registrar basis ie.
>if the domain is with registrar A and they've adopted method X then
>Y will happen
>
>So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you could end up with a
>situation where the post-expiry behaviour would vary across
>registrars AND be set in policy?
>
>Or am I missing something?
>
>As I said, I'm having difficulty following this
>
>Regards
>
>Michele
>
>
>On 20 Jan 2011, at 23:57, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> >
> > Michael, answers embedded.
> >
> > At 20/01/2011 04:02 PM, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote:
> >> Ok thanks for the prompt reply Alan, so let me see if I
> understand this correctly with a little walk through here.
> >>
> >> One recommendation is to ensure the domain is retrievable by the
> registrant for 10 days after expiry.
> >
> > For at least 10 days.
> >
> >
> >> Another recommendation is to ensure the that "if" the domain is
> darkened during the auto-renew grace period, it must be retrievable
> by the registrant for 8 days after darkening.
> >
> > Although not critical here, note that the proposal does not refer
> to the ARGP, but simply post-expiration.
> >
> >
> >> If I were a registrar then, and my practise was to "darken" the
> domain sometime after expiry but before deletion, then to comply
> with both of these recommendations I would have to "darken" the
> domain by the end of the second day following expiration, to darken
> it later would violate one of these recommendations.
> >
> > No, to darken it later is fine. But that pushes out the 10 day
> period. So if you choose to give 30 days of continued operation and
> then darken, you cannot irrevocably sell the domain to someone else
> before day 38.
> >
> > Perhaps in an effort to make it short, I lost clarity. Here is
> another version.
> >
> > a) The domain must be guaranteed renewable for at least 10 days.
> > b) Before it can be lost (ie not renewable by the RAE), it must
> be darkened for 8 days first.
> > c) Notwithstanding a) and b), the registrar can delete at any time.
> >
> > The intent is to always give a registrant a go-dark warning
> before the domain is no longer renewable. The typical scenario
> today where the registrar blackens the domain somewhere in the
> first 5 days and allows the RAE to renew until day 30-40 meets the
> requirements. As would darkening on day 2 and irrevocably selling
> on day 11. And the registrar (one of those surveyed) who darkens on
> day 21 and allows renewals until day 35.
> >
> > The behavior that it does not allow is darkening on day 11 and
> simultaneously making it no longer renewable under the published terms.
> >
> > Is that any better?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >> Was that really the intention, to drive that type of
> behaviour? From the statistics I have seen, I am not seeing any
> obvious benefit that will assist a typical registrant by forcing
> darkening practises to be initiated the second day after expiration,.....
> >>
> >> Am I missing another element here?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Michael
> >
> >
>
>Mr Michele Neylon
>Blacknight Solutions
>Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>ICANN Accredited Registrar
>http://www.blacknight.com/
>http://blog.blacknight.com/
>http://blacknight.mobi/
>http://mneylon.tel
>Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>US: 213-233-1612
>UK: 0844 484 9361
>Locall: 1850 929 929
>Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>-------------------------------
>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845