[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

[Adam Peake]

Minutes of the first Deletes task force teleconference call below.

Really would like to hear comments on the deletes issue, we've been 
asked to produce a constituency statement by November 22.

The Deletes task force terms of reference at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-deletes/Arc00/msg00003.html> 
Paper describing the issues at 
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020919.NCdeletes-issues.html>

So, how does this issue effect your organization?  Some naive 
observations below:

I don't think it's much of an issue for well resourced non commercial 
organizations (assuming the problems over deletions for WHOIS 
"inaccuracy" are sorted out -- a matter for a separate task force.) 
But for small organizations, where names are perhaps the 
responsibility of just any-other-staff member (who might change jobs, 
and/or not realize the importance of the $20 thing that's registered 
in their name, or not even understand that the thing they thought 
they "bought" is actually leased, etc.) deletions can be a real 
hassle.

Names are a low cost item, but potentially enormous value to an 
organization.  Low cost: registries and registrars cannot be expect 
to put in place elaborate procedures; high value, the organization 
acquiring the name needs to be protected against unintended 
deletions.  So what's the answer?

1.  I think we could be helped by clearer information about the 
renewal process at the time of registration. When a registrant first 
acquires a name and pays for it, it's just about the only time a 
registrar can be sure they have the person's attention and correct 
contact information, providing clear information about the name at 
this time is essential (later has all kinds of problems: I get so 
much spam from people trying to sell me names, I don't check email 
with "domain name" in the subject very carefully!)

So I would suggest that at the time of registration registrars have 
an obligation to make clear that the name is not bought outright, it 
must be renewed after a period of time. They should make clear that 
if contact information given to the registrar changes, then it must 
be updated or reminders about renewal may not be received and the 
name perhaps deleted/lost. Basically a big warning notice at the time 
of registration about the importance of renewal.  With all registrars 
required to present a minimum set of information about the name 
renewal process (minimum requirements that would not prevent 
registrars from offering "better" terms as a way to differentiate 
their product.)

We need clarity and consistency at registration, and a consistent and 
predictable process at renewal. With that, a lot of problems around 
the "deletes" issue should disappear.

2. It is expected that the redemption grace period now being 
introduced will help by providing a final warning of an impending 
deletion and the name going back on the market.

Under the redemption grace period, before a name is finally deleted 
and made available for another to acquire, it is removed from the 
zone file and so any website or email service associated with the 
name goes blank.  To have your email stop or website not resolve 
seems to be a good final reminder for people that they are about to 
loose their name (expected that anyone in this situation will start 
trying to find out what the problem is and pretty soon find out they 
have some money to pay for their name.)

Question.  Is the redemption grace period adequate protection for non 
commercial organizations?  What more is needed?

Any and all comments welcome.

Thanks,

Adam



>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:54:01 -0500
>Subject: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15
>From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan at Registrypro.com>
>To: <nc-deletes at dnso.org>
>CC: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade at att.com>, <harris at cabase.org.ar>
>Sender: owner-nc-deletes at dnso.org
>
>DELETES TASK FORCE, CONFERENCE CALL NOTES
>November 15, 2002   14:00 UTC
>
>I. PARTICIPANTS
>
>The following task force members were present on the call:
>
>Registry constituency: Jordyn Buchanan:Jordyn.Buchanan at Registrypro.com
>Business Constituency: Bret Fausett: fausett at lextext.com
>NCDNHC: Adam Peake: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>IP constituency: Jane Mutimear: jane.mutimear at twobirds.com
>ISPCP constituency: Maggie Mansourkia: Maggie.Mansourkia at wcom.com
>GA: John Berryhill: john at johnberryhill.com
>Registrar constituency: Tim Ruiz: tim at godaddy.com
>
>Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse was unable to participate due to difficulties
>connecting him to the conference bridge.
>
>II. AGENDA
>
>The interim chair, Jordyn Buchanan, provided an informal agenda which
>included a discussion of the issues identified in the deletes issues paper,
>and electing a permanent chair.
>
>Brett Fausett requested a discussion of the schedule and process governing
>the task force's work.  This was discussed prior to the other elements of
>the agenda.
>
>III. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS
>
>Buchanan outlined the timeline for the task force's work, which he indicated
>was devised in accordance with the new GNSO PDP.  The original schedule is
>as follows:
>
>        1. task force members from each constituency due 17 Oct 2002 (10 days
>           after 7 Oct 02)
>        2. open public comments on the topic for 20 days beginning 14 Oct
>           2002
>        3. constituency position statements due 8 Nov 2002 (35 days after 3
>           Oct 02)
>        4. Preliminary Task Force Report due 15 Nov 2002 - Task Force Report
>           due 25 Nov 2002
>        5. Public comment period from 25 Nov 2002 until 16 Dec 2002 (20 days)
>        6. Final Task Force Report due 26 Dec 2002 - Council to review report
>           at meeting around 5 Jan 2003
>        7. Board Report due around 10 Jan 2003
>
>Buchanan indicated that the full membership had not been announced until the
>Shanghai Names Council meeting, and that as a result the deadlines for item
>#3 and #4 had already been missed.  He proposed a new deadline of November
>22 for constituency position statements, and an adjustment of the subsequent
>dates accordingly.  Fausett indicated that the short timeframes in the PDP
>were supposed to be made possible due to support from ICANN staff, which was
>not yet available.  Buchanan agreed, but indicated that the task force
>should try to adhere to the timelines as closely as possible.
>
>Members were polled to indicated whether or not constituency statements
>would be feasible by November 22.  Several members indicated that they
>thought their constituencies (IPC, ISPCP, Registrars) would be able to
>provide statements by that date.  Fausett indicated that Business
>Constituency bylaws require that statements be made available for comment
>for at least 10 days prior to becoming official; Adam Peake indicated that
>it might be difficult to obtain a NCDHC statement within a week, but that he
>thought a statement from the constituency leaders was feasible.  The
>deadline of November 22 for constituency statements was retained, with the
>understanding that they might be amended after initial submission.
>
>IV. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
>
>Discussion was broken into the four issues presented into the deletes issues
>paper.
>
>Issue 1:  Uniform delete practice after domain name expiry by registrars
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It was generally agreed that it would be desirable for non-renewed domains
>to be consistently deleted by registrars within the 45 day auto-renew grace
>period.  Tim Ruiz indicated that this would probably be acceptable to
>registrars, although more specific requirements with specific dates would be
>more difficult to implement.  Buchanan also indicated that it would be
>difficult to force registrars to carry names beyond their original
>expiration, as this would require them to provide services that they had not
>been paid for.
>
>Jane Mutimear pointed to the discussion of names being deleted while the
>subject of a UDRP dispute.  There was general consensus that this was not
>desirable, but neither was forcing registrars to carry domain names that
>were no longer being paid for.  Mutimear agreed to provide a proposed
>solution for the problem to the task force by the next conference call.
>
>The issue was raised of registrars attempting to resell names during the
>renew grace period.  Buchanan indicated that he thought this was not within
>the terms of reference for the task force, and that the problem was largely
>confined to registrars selling names outside of the grace periods.  Ruiz
>indicated that some registrars might try to sell names after a fraudulent
>registration had occurred (in which case only a five day grace period would
>apply).  Generally, it was thought that the re-sale issue was beyond the
>scope of the deletes task force, but that the issue of deletions after a
>fraudulent registration was discussed further.  The current limited add
>grace period has the undesirable effect of forcing registrars to carry a
>name without being compensated for their services.  Buchanan indicated that
>this issue was not within the scope of the terms of reference, but that the
>task force could request an expansion of its scope to the names council.
>Buchanan requested that members discuss this possibility with their
>constituencies before further task force action was taken.
>
>The issue was raised of fraudulent deletion or deletion due to registrar
>error.  Buchanan and Mutimear both contended that this was dealt with by the
>redemption grace period.  Buchanan requested that if anyone wished to
>discuss this issue further, that they make the case that the redemption
>grace period did not provide sufficient protection.
>
>John Berryhill indicated that some registrants did not realize that they
>needed to renew their domain names.  It was the general consensus that
>registrars providing good notice of their policies regarding deletion would
>be helpful.  Registrars could indicate that domains would be deleted if not
>renewed, as well as public notice of the timeframes in which they delete
>names.  This would largely ameliorate the need for more specific
>requirements of deletion policy within the 45 day auto-renew grace period.
>
>Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy
>---------------------------------------------------------
>It was generally thought that there was potential duplication of effort on
>this issue with the Whois task force.  Buchanan indicated that a liaison
>from the Whois task force should be participating in the deletes task force,
>and that the current chairs had been selected as interim liaisons.
>
>To avoid overlapping work effort with the Whois task force, it was generally
>agreed that the deletes task force should focus on how deletes are handled
>once the decision has been made to remove a domain, while the Whois task
>force should focus on the mechanism that triggers the renewal.
>
>Two general areas of concern were discussed:
>
>1. Mutimear indicated that IPC was concerned that domains deleted because of
>inaccurate Whois information should not simply be allowed to be undeleted
>via the Redemption Grace Period, which could allow registrants to treat
>Whois-related deletions as a "revolving door" with no real consequences.  It
>was generally agreed that this was undesirable, and two theoretical
>solutions were proposed:  first, that names could not be undeleted through
>the redemption grace period unless the domain was updated with correct Whois
>data; or second, that the redemption grace period would only apply to a
>domain the first time it was deleted due to Whois accuracy concerns.  Ruiz
>was tasked with requesting registrars to provide feedback about which
>mechanism was preferred.
>
>2. Ruiz indicated that registrars were concerned about proper notice being
>provided to registrants prior to deletion, and that current 15 day notice
>provisions might be insufficient, especially to international registrars.
>No specific agreements or recommendations were made on this point.
>
>Issue 3: Registry delete process
>--------------------------------
>
>It was generally agreed that the redemption grace period provided much of
>the transparency required by users and registrars.
>
>Buchanan raised the concern that this transparency might still result in add
>storms of the sort that seriously impacted the VeriSign CNO registry in
>2001.  As a result, registries might like to implement a re-registration
>system.  VeriSign's WLS was cited as an example.  Buchanan agreed to ask the
>registry constituency for proposals on this topic.
>
>Issue 4: Reversal of renewal transactions
>-----------------------------------------
>
>Many participants seemed to think that this was not a serious problem with
>little impact on registrants.  Because the impact would be likely to be felt
>most by registrars, Tim Ruiz agreed to ask the registrars constituency if
>they felt the issue needed to be addressed by the task force.
>
>V.  ELECTION OF CHAIR
>---------------------
>Jordyn A. Buchanan was nominated by Tim Ruiz and seconded by Jane Mutimear.
>No other candidates were nominated.  The members of the task force agreed
>that Buchanan should continue to act as chair.
>
>VI. NEXT MEETING
>----------------
>
>The next meeting was scheduled for after the submission of constituency
>statements, on Monday, November 25 at 14:00 UTC.  Although the conference
>call service used for the first call seemed quite effective, various members
>expressed concern that the non-commercial participants were the ones with
>the greatest difficulty accessing the call due to timing and expense issues.
>Buchanan agreed to discuss with Bruce Tonkin and the DNSO Secretariat
>whether any DNSO facilities were available to facilitate participation.
>
>VI. ACTION ITEMS
>----------------
>1. Constituency statements due by November 22.
>2. Buchanan: Request feedback from the registry constituency regarding
>proposed mechanisms for possible re-registrations services invoked once a
>domain name has been deleted.  Also discuss with Bruce Tonkin and the DNSO
>Secretariat what DNSO resources may be available to improve access and
>transparency for the task force.
>3. Ruiz: Request feedback from registrar constituency on a) mechanisms for
>ensuring that the redemption grace period is not abused by registrants who
>provide incorrect Whois data; and b) whether registrars feel that a
>mechanism to reverse renewal transactions other than through the deletion of
>domains is a serious issue that warrants the attention of this task force.
>4: Mutimear: Propose a mechanism for preventing the deletion of names during
>a UDRP dispute that does not create an unfair burden upon registrars.


--