Fwd: [council] Fwd: Redemption Grace Period and associated rights

[Adam Peake]

Robin, Hi.

What does "inadvertently lapsed re-registration" 
mean... Didn't understand the terms of the 
agreement with the registrar. Forgot. Missed the 
emails and perhaps faxed reminders (one of my 
registrars sends me a fax when I don't reply and 
expiry date nears.)

Once out of the automated re-registration system 
and a person's involved the registrar will be 
incurring quite heavy costs. And if your friend's 
name is a short string or real word/words then 
seems the registrar might be being helpful with 
their warnings about possible future costs 
(perhaps,don't know the name, etc.)

That said, I do think there need to be checks 
made that earlier consensus policy has been 
implemented and registrants made aware of renewal 
and delete policy.

And I support ALAC's efforts to begin a PDP 
process on redemption grace and hope the NCUC 
will also in the GNSO.

Adam  (personal opinion, not yet an ALAC member.)



>NCUC:
>
>As I told Alan Greenberg on the GNSO call this 
>AM, NCUC is interested to work with ALAC on this 
>initiative (see email below) on the Redemption 
>Grace Period.
>
>Just recently, this problem was brought to my 
>attention by a friend who was being pressured by 
>a registrar for high fees to get his domain name 
>back in this period.  After the domain name 
>(which had been held for many years) 
>inadvertently lapsed re-registration, the 
>registrar wanted to charge him $85 to get his 
>domain back.    My friend balked at the high 
>price and asked if he could wait for it to be 
>available again to the public and register it at 
>a competitive price ($14), but was told it could 
>be up to 90 days before it will be made 
>available to the public again by the registrar. 
> He said the registrar was intentionally trying 
>to stoke his fear that he would lose his domain 
>if he did not pay the $85 to renew it in this 
>redemption period.  The registrar told him 
>someone else could get the domain the minute it 
>is available to the public and then he'd have to 
>pay thousands of dollars to get it back.
>
>It seems like some registrars are able to extort 
>exorbitant fees out of domain name registrants 
>by virtue of their position of the domain name 
>distribution chain.
>
>Are there others in NCUC interested in this 
>issue of the redemption grace period and with 
>working with ALAC and others to address it?
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>Date: September 25, 2008 8:20:40 AM PDT
>>To: Council GNSO <<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>council at gnso.icann.org>
>>Cc: ALAC Working List 
>><<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>Subject: [council] Fwd: Redemption Grace Period and associated rights
>>
>>
>>As per my announcement today at the end of 
>>today's Council meeting, following is the 
>>solicitation for support and help sent to the 
>>ALAC and At-Large.  It is not a definitive 
>>description of the issue, but rather a 
>>hopefully understandable summary for this who 
>>do not spend their days thinking about domain 
>>registration processes.
>>
>>The overall intent is to end up in an 
>>environment where registrants have a 
>>reasonable, predictable way to recover an 
>>expired domain regardless of whether the reason 
>>for expiration was lack of appropriate action 
>>on the part of the registrant, registrar or an 
>>act of some other third party. My understanding 
>>is that this was the original intent prior to 
>>the domain industry becoming such a large 
>>business in its own right.
>>
>>The ALAC is certainly interested in hearing 
>>from any constituencies who support the 
>>initiative, and in particular, any individuals 
>>who can help us craft the request for an Issues 
>>Report.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:37:26 -0400
>>>To: At-Large Worldwide 
>>><<mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 
>>>ALAC Working List 
>>><<mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>>From: Alan Greenberg 
>>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>>Subject: Redemption Grace Period and associated rights
>>>
>>>Four weeks ago, Danny Younger raised the issue 
>>>of the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) with the 
>>>North American RALO. A copy of his e-mail can 
>>>be found at 
>>><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?redemption_grace_period_danny_younger>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?redemption_grace_period_danny_younger.
>>>
>>>In essence, about six years ago, the RGP was 
>>>proposed and implemented to allow a registrant 
>>>to recover a domain name after it had expired 
>>>and been deleted by the registrar. The reason 
>>>for the deletion could be that a registrant 
>>>did not receive the required notices of 
>>>expiry, or they were not sent, or they simply 
>>>forgot. Under the RGP, when a registry (such 
>>>as VeriSign for .com) receives a request to 
>>>delete a name, it is put in a hold status for 
>>>30 days. During this period, the name does not 
>>>resolve, and if nothing else had caught the 
>>>registrant's eye before, this usually will. 
>>>During this time, a registrant can recover the 
>>>name for a fee. The fee is currently set $40 
>>>but can and generally is marked up by the 
>>>registrar.
>>>
>>>The RGP was implemented voluntarily as a 
>>>Registry Service by all of the non-sponsored 
>>>gTLDs.  A registrar is not required to offer 
>>>the RGP however, so the existence of this 
>>>registry service did not guarantee that a 
>>>registrant who neglected to renew could 
>>>effectively use the RGP. It was hoped that as 
>>>Registrar contracts were renegotiated, the 
>>>requirement to make the RGP available would be 
>>>added, but this did not happen. A consensus 
>>>policy could have been created which would 
>>>force them to offer the service, but this also 
>>>did not happen.
>>>
>>>From the point of registries, domains 
>>>automatically renew, but the registrar can 
>>>reverse this retroactively during the 
>>>"auto-renew grace period" (ARGP - typically 45 
>>>days).
>>>
>>>Since that time the situation has changed in 
>>>that registrars have generally added 
>>>conditions in their registrant agreements that 
>>>give the registrar the right to transfer or 
>>>sell or auction an expired domain to some 
>>>other party (the so called "direct transfer" 
>>>right). Often, during the AGRP, they may 
>>>monetize the domain temporarily to see if it 
>>>attracts much traffic and therefore has 
>>>commercial value. During this time, they *may* 
>>>be willing to sell the domain back to the 
>>>original registrant. The price may depend on 
>>>how much traffic they saw in the interim. Once 
>>>a value is determined, the domain may be kept 
>>>by the registrar (perhaps via a related 
>>>company), or sold or auctioned. Since the 
>>>domain is never actually deleted at the 
>>>registry (it still maintains its original 
>>>creation date), it never gets a chance to 
>>>enter the RGP.
>>>
>>>As complicated as this may sound, it is the 
>>>short version. There was an excellent tutorial 
>>>on these practices given at the Lisbon ICANN 
>>>meeting in March 2007. A transcript can be 
>>>found at 
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/transcript-tutorial-expiring-25mar07.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/transcript-tutorial-expiring-25mar07.htm.
>>>
>>>The NARALO has agreed that this is a good 
>>>project to take on, and has requested that the 
>>>ALAC pursue it. The issue was on the ALAC 
>>>meeting agenda of September 9, but 
>>>unfortunately time ran out before we got to 
>>>it. However, since that meeting there have 
>>>been a number of conversations that indicate 
>>>that this is an issue of importance and that 
>>>there is sufficient interest among At-Large 
>>>that ALAC should pursue it.
>>>
>>>In summary, we are looking for a way to ensure 
>>>that registrants have a reasonably and fairly 
>>>priced way to retain a domain name, even if it 
>>>had inadvertently expired in the recent past. 
>>>We are essentially looking at it from two main 
>>>perspectives:
>>>
>>>- Impact on registrants who lose control of 
>>>their domain name, potentially with 
>>>significant financial or other impact; and
>>>- Impact on users who can no longer access web 
>>>sites and services that they rely on.
>>>
>>>If we an find sufficient interest in At-Large 
>>>and the RALOs to support this project, I would 
>>>like to see the ALAC request an Issues Report 
>>>from ICANN staff, which is the first step in 
>>>initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP). 
>>>Following the delivery of the Issues report, 
>>>the GNSO Council would need to vote to decide 
>>>to initiate a PDP. Informal conversations 
>>>indicate there may be reasonable support for 
>>>this on Council; assuming ICANN staff decide 
>>>that this is an issues within the scope of the 
>>>GNSO, initiation requires only a >33% vote.
>>>
>>>If we work quickly, I believe we can formally 
>>>decide to proceed at the ALAC's October 14th 
>>>meeting, and issue the request for the Issues 
>>>Report in Cairo.
>>>
>>>I solicit general statements of support from 
>>>ALSs and RALOs, and a few volunteers to help 
>>>work on the request. Volunteers must either be 
>>>knowledgeable in the issues being discussed, 
>>>or be willing to learn very quickly.
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>>PS For this who want to understand more of the 
>>>history of the RGP, you can refer to:
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/accra/redemption-topic.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/accra/redemption-topic.htm
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#RedemptionGracePeriod>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#RedemptionGracePeriod
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>IP JUSTICE
>Robin Gross, Executive Director
>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>w: 
><http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org 
> e: <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org