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

[Adam Peake]

>Adam:


Milton, thanks.

>
>
>>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")


I would like the registrars to include a commitment not to spam in 
any best practise. And I think ICANN should look at issues of domain 
name spam, but other than encouraging self-regulation, I'm not sure 
what can be done other than national level regulation.  And I'm 
pretty sure it's not an issue for the deletes task force. I'm 
suggesting something narrower, that email from registrars about 
renewals should be simple and on subject:  your name is about to 
expire, do X Y Z or your name will be deleted.  No marketing stuff or 
IP protection stuff padding out the message. Registrant needs to be 
able to pick out the renewal request from among the spam.

>
>>
>>(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.


Perhaps, but this is not the job of the deletes task force which is 
considering policy once a delete is recommended.  Your issue is with 
the WHOIS task force and I suggest Thomas Roessler 
<roessler at does-not-exist.org> would be a good person to contact.

>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.

Sorry, no, I've been unclear. I meant that once a registrar received 
an instruction to delete a name for WHOIS inaccuracy, that 
instruction would trigger a standard delete policy. i.e. once the 
delete instruction was received, the name in question would, 
generally, be treated as any other name and be subject to auto-renew 
and redemption grace.

Thanks,

Adam



>--MM


--