[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15
J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
jefsey at club-internet.fr
Wed Nov 20 15:29:15 CET 2002
Dear Alejandro,
whatever the proposed solutions everyone know they will have no real life
impact. As everyon known that their propositions would have no impact on
the ERC. So let make something positive ouout of this.
From your ERC experience why not to impose the same way a new domain name
economy? It would not be complicated: you take one of the new TLDs that
Stuart needs to discuss to get at the dormant $ 350.000 and as a make
believe ICANN is at something Sept next so it is reniewed. You carry a
correct analysis of the domain name nature, cost, terms of delegation and
users and registrants rights and duties, and you impose that concepts to
one of the the new TLD Managers.
Then you see what happens. Reality could not endanger the DNS more than IDNs.
jfc
On 05:32 20/11/02, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM said:
>Adam,
>
>it seems that your message on deletes has generated no response yet, which
>is somewhat disturbing.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.?
>
>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?
>
>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
> >
> >
> >
> > >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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list