Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Your feedback requested - outstanding items from last week's call

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 01/02/2011 01:49 PM, Ron Wickersham wrote:


> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > In order to facilitate discussion and input prior to our meeting, 
> also for those not being able to join today's call, please find 
> below the main outstanding items based on last week's meeting:
> >
> > *   Recommendation #2 - Define Registered Name Holder at 
> Expiration" (RNHaE) as the Registered Name Holder of record just 
> prior to the Expiration of the Registered Name.
> >
> > Comments: The language needs to be precise regarding which 
> registrant is being referred to. Presumably the one that is in 
> WHOIS prior to Expiration. (Any suggestions for further improvement?)
> It seems to me that the "Registrant" or Registered Name Holder is that
> person/organization who had the right to renew the domain prior to expiry
> and during the Autorenew Grace Period it is already understood that
> this "Registrant" is whom is being talked about as being offered the
> grace-period renewal "right".   Changing the WHOIS does not change this.
>
> Can our wording be the same as that currently in use for the Autorenew
> Grace Period?
Currently, most registrants give their permission at registration 
time to allow the name to be reassigned to someone else 
post-expiration. And that someone-else renews it. The proposal here 
is that such a reassignment permission doesn't count in this case.

> > *   Recommendation #3 - Following expiration, during Autorenew 
> Grace Period, if a Registrar Deletes a Registered Name and that 
> Registered Name enters the RGP, the Registrar must allow the 
> Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name. 
> This is regardless of any changes made to Whois data or other 
> records between expiration of the domain and entering RGP.  This is 
> excepted where the Registrant has explicitly agreed to a 
> reassignment of the domain, in a separate unilateral action at the 
> time of reassignment, name to another Registered Name Holder.
> >
> > Comments: Michael Young to provide further information. The WG 
> also discussed that the recommendation should specify what the 
> authoritative source for the information on the Registered Name 
> Holder at expiration should be e.g. as shown in WHOIS. (WG members 
> encouraged to provide alternative language for consideration)
> There can only be _one_ Registered Name Holder at a time.   And if it is
> clear who that is before expiry, and who it is during the Autorenew Grace
> Period, then why is it unclear during any newly-created Grace Period?
>
> I agree that WHOIS is not authoritative in this case, and support changes
> in WHOIS, but that is beyond the scope of this WG, other than to point
> out the confusion and lack of transparancy in the current practice of
> some Registrars with respect to their changes in WHOIS after expiry.
>
> And the Registered Name Holder is the only one who can authorize
> reassignment of the domain.  (Well there is an exception for courts
> to instruct ICANN or a Registry to reassign).
>
> After expiry (and all grace periods have passed) the original procedure
> was to place the domain back in the pool of available domain names.  More
> recent practice is to _involuntarily_ reassign the Registered Name Holder
> to a Registry (or their assignee) for exclusive remarketing the domain name.
Not quite. It is not involuntary. The registrant DOES give permission 
(whether they are conscious of this or not) - way ahead of time.

> I would be interested in clarification of this involuntary reassignment...
> is it in the RAAs or is it in the Registration Service Agreement between
> the Registrant and the Registrar/Reseller?
>
>
> -ron