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

[Milton Mueller]

Adam:
Your participation in this task force has been exemplary,
given the constraints we all face. thanks for submitting
this report and I will offer a few comments:

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 11/22/02 12:01PM >>>
>i./  Registrants need to be given clearer information about the
>renewal process at the time of registration.

Agree

>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.

Agree

>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.

Does not really solve the problem. The renewal correspondence
can be as plain as the nose on your face but if the spammers
are not clear but deliberately deceptive, then we still have a 
problem. 

We must either suggest that national regulatory authorities
(e.g., in the USA, the FTC) address these emails, or that 
ICANN does. I suggest that we rely on national regulatory
authorities, at least until ICANN's structure is reformed
(as opposed to "deformed")

>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.
>

Again, it's either national or global regulation. Your suggestion 
above is acceptable to me.

>
>(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.
>

I oppose deletion on the basis of WHOIS information
TF recommendations. I think the NCDNHC should resist
it. Your emphasis on uniformity, which suggests (I think)
that a name with false WHOIS should be deleted at its
expiration date, and not before, is a good compromise.

--MM