[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Comments from NCC representative (constituency statements)

[Adam Peake]

Just sent this to the deletes task force.

Constituency position statements are due today -- I don't feel I know 
enough to write anything like a position paper on behalf of the 
constituency, so hope the following remarks are fair.

Members, comment please.

Thanks,

Adam


>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>X-Sender: ajp at pop.glocom.ac.jp
>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 01:50:29 +0900
>To: nc-deletes at dnso.org
>From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>Subject: [nc-deletes] Comments from NCC representative (constituency 
>statements)
>Sender: owner-nc-deletes at dnso.org
>
>As anticipated during the task force teleconference of November 15,
>it has not been possible for the non-commercial constituency to
>develop a position statement in response to the issues raised in the
>task force issues paper, terms of reference, etc. The NCC membership
>was asked for comments, there was some discussion, but not yet enough
>to help form the basis of a  draft position statement. I doubt the
>constituency will be in a position any time soon to submit a
>substantive position statement on the deletes issue.
>
>However, comments to the constituency mailing list, personal email,
>and conversations in Shanghai, show a common concern is the lack of
>clarity and consistency in the renewal/deletes process.  Anxiety
>around deletions generally might be much reduced if the process were
>better understood. In small, often poorly resourced organizations,
>lack of awareness seems to be a likely cause of poor internal
>processes for managing names, maintaining contact details, etc.
>
>(ONE)  Summarizing and interpreting general comments received:
>
>i./  Registrants need to be given clearer information about the
>renewal process at the time of registration.
>
>At the time of registration, it should be made clear that names are
>not bought outright, but must be renewed after a period of time. It
>should be made clear that if contact information given to the
>registrar changes, it must be updated or reminders about renewal may
>not be received and the name perhaps deleted/lost. Correspondence
>from the registrar rather than information on a website would be the
>most effective way to educate the registrant.
>
>ii./  Clarity in all correspondence about the renewals process is important.
>
>At a time when Internet users must to wade through a mailboxes full
>of spam, a not insignificant amount of which touts cheap domain name
>registrations, registrars should be careful to present renewal
>notices in a straight forward manner, uncluttered by excessive
>marketing information and other perhaps off-putting information.
>Plain language, on subject, should be the basis of renewal
>correspondence.
>
>Suggestion:
>
>It is not ICANN's (or DNSO's) place to dictate how any business
>should write letters, or generally communicate with its customers. In
>this industry self-managing regime, providing clear information about
>the renewal process should be part of industry best practise. A best
>practise document might require registrars to present a minimum set
>of information about the renewal process to registrants at the time
>of registration (minimum requirements that would not prevent
>registrars from offering "better" terms as a way to differentiate
>their product.) And offer advice on standard formats to be considered
>when corresponding about renewal.
>
>
>(TWO) Issues 1 and 2 of the deletes issue paper (Issue 1:  Uniform
>delete practice after domain name expiry by registrars; Issue 2:
>Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy.)
>
>In-line with comments on clarity and consistency above, a uniform
>deletion process is desirable. Whether the result of a complaint on
>WHOIS accuracy (however the WHOIS Task Force defines this) or the
>result of usual expiry, uniformity is helpful to registrants. That
>is, the instruction to delete a name for WHOIS inaccuracy would be in
>effect the same as reaching expiry date, i.e. the first day of the
>auto-renew period (up to 45 days) and should be followed by
>redemption grace. Exceptions are envisaged (some have been noted by
>other members of the deletes task force), but, generally, the average
>registrant should be able to expect consistent treatment.
>
>Note.  While the above statement on uniform practises has been
>supported by some representatives of the constituency, and has been
>put to the constituency a number of times, it has not received
>substantive public comment. It would be inappropriate to take "no
>comment" as acceptance at this stage. So the above is offered as a
>sense of the constituency rather than statement.
>
>The message will be sent to the non commercial constituency
>discussion list. I hope NCC members will comment.  Given sufficient
>feedback from the constituency, a revised statement will be submitted
>to the task force.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Adam
>
>Adam Peake
>GLOCOM Tokyo
>
>--


--