[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15
Harold J. Feld
hfeld at mediaaccess.org
Wed Nov 20 17:12:35 CET 2002
There is only so much that ICANN can and should do in this matter.
I supported the grace period because it provides necessary and adequate
warning for people with a critical resource. My phone number won't be
reassigned if I let my phone bill lapse and get service suspended, for
example. But eventually, names can and should go back into the pool.
Given that a bankrupt company or other registrant may not even exist by
the time the name expires, return to the pool must be a default option
at some point.
Harold
Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list