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

[Harold J. Feld]

This is a sensible approach.

Adam Peake wrote:

>> 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]