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

[Adam Peake]

>Adam,
>
>it seems that your message on deletes has generated no response yet, which
>is somewhat disturbing.

Alejandro,

Not many comments -- but a couple privately, which is fine.

Lack of response is perhaps a mix of apathy (me too), and that it's 
quite a complicated issue, tied to the very long running and even 
more complicated WHOIS task force.  It's been going on so long I 
expect many people just ignore the subject line (I tended too until 
recently -- just not enough time in the day for reading about 
processes that take 18 months or more.)


>Approving the "redemption and grace period" resolution was done thinking
>very much of the type of situation you describe: small organizations,
>maybe also fast turnover of people in charge, not a lot of
>technical/managerial skills available, overload.


Exactly.  I hope this will be an adequate catch-all for smaller organizations.

>Now, the lack of response to your call for expressions seems to underline
>that either the problem is insoluble, the non-commercial organizations
>here have their domain names under ccTLDs which are a lot more friendly
>than the registries and registrars for gTLDs, the representatives of these
>organizations in the constituency are actually not involved with domain
>names except theoretically, or a combination.


I have received a couple of responses, and they are helpful.  But I 
think you've hit on some important questions.  And I'd add that as a 
group we seem very jaded (as with apathy, me too.)


>For YOUR organizations, fellow constituency members, how important is the
>deletes issue? What impact would you receive from the loss of a domain
>name through carelessness, the fact that the admin or other contacts are
>not valid, etc.?


The issue that bothers me is WHOIS accuracy.  I have no idea if a 
name like glocom.org (which is registered to me) could be deleted as 
a result of some illegitimate challenge that I wouldn't have any idea 
about until too late (too late = when I hear a colleague raving that 
the site won't resolve. ) I travel a lot, and often I won't check my 
answer phone, see fax or email (to the email address listed in the 
name record) for weeks.  Others have other reasons for not seeing 
correspondence during this very short time span.

As I think one of the reasons for the deletes task force is to bring 
uniformity to delete practice, I think having an auto-renew period of 
up to 45 days followed by redemption grace, should be applied to all 
deletes, whether for WHOIS accuracy (however the WHOIS Task Force 
finally defines this) or the result of usual expiry.  That is, the 
instruction to delete a name for WHOIS inaccuracy would be in effect 
the same as reaching expiry date, and the same process would follow 
from what would be delete day 1.  I could envisage exceptions, such 
as for blatant fraud in WHOIS data (but defining "blatant" might not 
be easy - unless it were a court?) etc.  But generally, the average 
registrant should be able to expect consistent treatment.


>And in consequence, can we help answer Adam's questions?
>
>Also. Given the risk of losing valuable domain names, what policies are
>best practice internally? Like, do you check that the contact information
>is well known to your leaders/managers, and is changed when the contacts
>leave your organizations? What else that we learn in some of our
>organizations is applicable to others?


This is why I suggested to begin with better information at the time 
of registration (see point 1 below.) I think registrants need to 
better understand the name registration process, or they will tend 
not to have adequate internal practises. Consumer education.

Many thanks,

Adam




>Yours,
>
>Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
>UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
>http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
>*
>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
>  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
>.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>
>
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>  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
>  >
>>
>  >

[minutes deleted]
--