Deletes task force -- Washington Post domain name expires

[Marc Schneiders]

Adam, I do not understand what problem you are tackling here. The
Washington Post story has nothing to do with deletes. It is about
terminating DNS when you don't pay in time. The domain would not have
been deleted for weeks and weeks.

I guess the real problem here was that the reminders sent by the
registrar went unnoticed. Possible reasons for this:

1. Reminders are filtered out as spam. I have seen this happening
myself at hotmail.
2. Reminders arrive at an email address that receives tons of spam,
because it is in whois. I see this happening too.

A solution to the latter problem is in the hands of the whois TFs. I
think it would e.g. be great if the email address to which reminders
are send, may be different from the one in whois. I mean that only the
registrar has this email address; it is not public. That assures that
reminders are not lost in between spam.

 On Fri, 6 Feb 2004,
at 13:15 [=GMT+0900], Adam Peake wrote:

> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16984-2004Feb5?language=printer>
>
> I'd like our names council representatives please ask what has been
> done about the deletes task force recommendations
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030617.DeletesTF-report.html>
> particularly:
>
> 3.1.4  Registrars shall provide notice to each new registrant
> describing the details of their deletion and auto-renewal policy
> including the expected time at which a non-renewed domain name would
> be deleted relative to the domain¹s expiration date, or a date range
> not to exceed ten days in length.
>
> If a registrar makes any material changes to its deletion policy
> during the period of the registration agreement, it must make at
> least the same effort to inform the registrant of the changes as it
> would to inform the registrant of other material changes to the
> registration agreement (as defined in clause 3.7.7 of the registrars
> accreditation agreement)."
>
> 3.1.5  If a registrar operates a website for domain name registration
> or renewal, details of its deletion and auto-renewal policies must be
> clearly displayed on the website.
>
> 3.1.6  If a registrar operates a website for domain registration or
> renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a
> clear place on its website, any fee charged for the recovery of a
> domain name during the Redemption Grace Period.
>
>   ---
>
> ICANN Board resolution [03.163] October 31.
> "ICANN President and General Counsel are authorized to take steps to
> implement those policy recommendations by consulting as appropriate
> with registry operators, registrars, and other knowledgeable parties
> and through amendments and notices, as appropriate, pursuant to
> ICANN's agreements with gTLD registry operators and registrars."
>
>   ---
>
> Looks to me like nothing's been done. Please remind the Council that
> part of the thinking behind this policy, particularly 3.1.4, was the
> hope of educating consumers about some of the basics of domain names
> so they (we) didn't mess up as often as happens now (e.g. not owned,
> "rented", you need to renew or risk loosing. Manage names carefully,
> appropriate to value not price.) This wasn't just intended for the
> sake of consumers. According to the Washington Post story, after
> sending email reminders --assume automatic?-- NSI sent 2 reminders by
> postal mail. This has to be a drain on resources that's way out of
> proportion to the revenue from the name.
>
> Council might like to consider monitoring implementation of consensus
> policies. The PDP has strict (much too tight?) timelines for
> development of policy, but there doesn't seem to be anything guiding
> implementation (except the Board to recommend as appropriate
> <http://gnso.icann.org/council/new-procedures.shtml#14>). There's no
> follow-up and monitoring by the council to ensure a consensus policy
> is implemented within a reasonable time. Suggest after board
> resolution, progress on implementation of a policy is reported to the
> Council at regular intervals, perhaps 3 months, 6 months, 1 year.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> --
>