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

[James Love]

Make that:  What *if* the registered *owner* could specific the nature of 
the deletes notice.   .....


James Love wrote:
> 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