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

Tue Sep 30 19:37:36 CEST 2008

Hi Adam,

I meant the registration of the domain name expired without the
person's having realized it.  Some registrars are better than others
at letting customers know when a registration will expire.

It would be interesting to know what different registrars charge
customers during the "redemption" period - that would be a useful
piece of info when shopping around for a registrar.

Robin

On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> 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

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     e: robin at ipjustice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080930/417ece3a/attachment.html>