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

[James Love]

What is the registered downer could specific the nature of the notice of a 
delete, such as a custom header that they could filter or something?

Jamie

Adam Peake wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 
> 


-- 
------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love at cptech.org
voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040