Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Draft (fwd)

[Brenden Kuerbis]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for following this issue so closely and your draft responses. My few
comments are in line below.  I realize I'm coming late to this, so if the
point I've raised has already been discussed just let me know.

Best regards,

Brenden

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Ron Wickersham <rjw at itsmyinternet.org>wrote:

<snip>


>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 23:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ron Wickersham <rjw at itsmyinternet.org>
> To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Subject: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Draft
>
> hi Robin,
>
> i have heard from no one else on the draft, perhaps due to the election, so
> proceeded on my own.
>
> note that this is due Oct 6th (may not be reflected on the sites, but the
> working group decided to extend the deadline).
>
> -ron
>
>
> #############################################################################
>
> Constituency Input Template
>
> Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process
>
> PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE TO THE PEDNR WG AT THE LATEST BY [TO BE
> CONFIRMED]
>
> The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and
> Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable
> individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations for best
> practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy to
> address a number of questions related to post-expiration domain name
> recovery.
>
> Part of the working group's effort will be to incorporate ideas and
> suggestions gathered from Constituencies through this Constituency
> Statement. Inserting your Constituency?s response in this form will make it
> much easier for the Working Group to summarize the Constituency responses.
> This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of
> view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any
> information you deem important to inform the working group's deliberations,
> even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below.
>
> For further background information on this issue, please review the GNSO
> Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery.
>
> Process
>
>    * Please identify the members of your constituency who participated in
> developing the perspective(s) set forth below.?
>
>
> Ron Wickersham drafted the response.
> Reviewed by NCUC Executive committee.
>
>    * Please describe the process by which your constituency arrived at the
> perspective(s) set forth below.
>
> Notice of PEDNR WG was posted on the NCUC wiki for volunteers.
> The NCUC mailing list solicited volunteers and comments from members.
> Progress of PENDR WG was discussed briefly on two NCUC teleconferences.
>
>
> Questions
>
> Please provide your constituency?s views on:
>
>   1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their
> expired domain names;
>
> Current ICANN policies endeavor to assure that expired domain names can
> be redeemed.  However, due to the complex array of registrars, and
> expecially
> resellers, these ICANN policies are not as effective as envisioned.
>
> On the narrow question of "opportunity" it is likely that a timely request
> for restoration of an expired domain name is honored.
>
> But there is a broader aspect which is that the registrant may be offered
> no information or incomplete information from the reseller or registrar
> handling the domain, and the policies vary widely.
>
>

>   2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration
> agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
>
> While "typical" registration agreements (especially for the larger
> registrars) are good, it is not the case that every registrant receives
> a registration agreement.
>
> Process are in place to assure that the Registries handle every domain in
> a uniform manner.   Expiration issues should be equally uniform, and not
> be considered in the realm of "competitive" variations.
>
>
Do you mean "Expiration policies should be equally uniform,..."?  If not,
I'm unclear what "Expiration issues" are.

More importantly, while I agree there should be a baseline of policy
uniformity, I wonder if we want to allow registries/resellers the
flexibility to set policies that could be even _more_ favorable for
consumers?



> In matters of this type, education of the Registrant has been suggested as
> the solution.  NCUC believes that education can only suceed if the policies
> around expiration are identical from any registrar or reseller.
>
>
Again, do we want entirely identical policies, or some identical baseline
policies?


Thanks,

Brenden




> Therefore the PEDNR WG would fulfill its mission if ICANN established
> minimum policies to be set out for notification when domains approach
> expiration, for procedures to be followed if the registration is not renewed
> (so that DNS changes at expiration uniformly regardless of registrar or
> reseller), and notification for restoring an expired domain name is uniform.
>
>
>   3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming
> expirations;
>
> Most registrars provide adequate notice.
>
>
>   4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that
> once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g.,
> hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to
> renew, or other options to be determined);
>
> NCUC finds that whois information on expiration is confusing for
> registrants due to auto-renew.   It would be ideal to eliminate the use of
> the identical term at the registry whois and the registrar or reseller whois
> to indicate the status of the domain.
>
> Because many domains are handled by web-hosting/email-hosting registrars
> and resellers, and these are often automated and competitively disparate
> offerings, there is little uniformity on what happens and at what speed
> changes are made to web sites and email routing when a domain expires.
> This variation makes registrant education a difficult goal.
>
>   5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.
>
> Read as if ICANN policy should allow, from willing registrars or resellers,
> transfer during the RGP, the answer is affirmative.  On the other hand, to
> _require_ registrars and resellers is fraught with difficulties.
>
> While it is slightly out of scope of the PEDNR WG, there is a related
> issue of a registrant being able to transfer before the registration
> expires, and in some cases this is precluded by registration agreements
> that vary.   It would be good policy to require uniformity on this
> aspect of oportunity to renew with a registrar or reseller of the
> registrant's choice.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20091126/f4428639/attachment.html>