Re[2]: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

Good idea, but it does not solve the problem quoted below - the
Registrant who didn't get notified. Further, NACHA requires
notification to the consumer before money is taken from their bank
account.

The period of time that the domain name does not resolve is intended
as a last ditch effort to make sure the Registrant no longer wants the
name. The assumption is that the Registrant will notice that his web
site and/or e-mail is not working. I suspect the Registrant's first
call will be to the firm which is hosting his web site or e-mail.
Consequently, an additional idea is notification to the Tech contract
(assuming it really is the systems admin of the company hosting the
web site or e-mail) that the name has expired. This may help, but it
also will not solve the problem.

Personally, I don't think there is a total resolution for this
problem, but there may be ways to improve the situation.


Sunday, February 17, 2002, 9:34:42 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> wrote:

EP> Hello everybody,

EP> Providing comment to an already 3 days old text ...

EP>   Quote from:
EP>   http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm

EP>      "Probably the most common type of unintentional deletion 
EP>       is caused by registrant mistake. Registrants sometimes 
EP>       inadvertently fail to renew registrations due to a clerical 
EP>       mistake or failure to receive a renewal notice (usually as 
EP>       a result of failing to keep registration contact information 
EP>       up-to-date.) If a registrant moves or changes Internet 
EP>       service providers, the registrant might not receive a notice 
EP>       from its registrar informing it that a renewal payment is due. 
EP>       Also, some registrants may accidentally overlook a renewal 
EP>       notice or mistake it for a solicitation or spam. Section 
EP>       3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement requires 
EP>       registrars to cancel the registration of any domain name 
EP>       for which the registrant fails to pay a renewal fee at the 
EP>       conclusion of a fixed registration period."

EP>   Quote from:
EP>   http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.7.5

EP>       "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to 
EP>        Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the 
EP>        conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on 
EP>        behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee 
EP>        within the time specified in a second notice or reminder 
EP>        shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result 
EP>        in cancellation of the registration. In the event that 
EP>        ICANN adopts a specification or policy concerning procedures 
EP>        for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall 
EP>        abide by that specification or policy."

EP> We could probably learn from other that domain names services.

EP> The public service subscriptions are much longer history that 
EP> Internet domain names under ICANN rules. They certainly vary 
EP> from country to country, but the spectra of solutions for them 
EP> could bring us some ideas for Internet domain names.

EP> In France we have a simple and clever payment feature for all 
EP> kind of public services (water supply, electricity supply, 
EP> telephone supply, Internet access supply, etc.), whether they 
EP> are provided by public or private companies. When you subscribe 
EP> to such services, you usually want them to be renewed without 
EP> getting bothered periodically. The default situation is that 
EP> you will renew unless stated otherwise (and not that you will 
EP> not renew unless explicitly re-subscribed). And you back it up
EP> by allowing the public service company to charge your bank account. 
EP> The advantage of being granted the payment is big enough to 
EP> make the public service companies taking care about their 
EP> reputation. Which is tourn makes consumer confident.

EP>    1. The subscriber sign a contract with a supplier, and allow 
EP>       the supplier to charge its bank account periodically. 
EP>       The supplier is sending few weeks in advance a printed 
EP>       invoice indicating when the bank account is going to be 
EP>       charged next time and the amount of money. 

EP>    2. The subscriber may change his mind any time, with a short 
EP>       notice, and cancel his subscription. But because the default 
EP>       is well adapted to the most common situation, the subscriber 
EP>       may also spent his summer vacation in Greece without 
EP>       bothering about electricity bills, and will not get into 
EP>       dark once at home.

EP> I tend to believe that ICANN rules for the service on domain 
EP> names should be oriented towards stable customers. 
EP> As a practical action it can be that a "long term option" 
EP> based on a kind of automatic periodical payment could be added 
EP> to Registrant's choice and allow him to keep his companies 
EP> names for business or communication for unlimited duration. 

EP> Adding any number of days for grace period does not change a iota 
EP> a logic in deletion problem IMHO.

EP> I think that the current ICANN text "ra-agreement-17may01.htm",
EP> is too strongly intended for competition between Registrars
EP> and does forget the basic need of Registrant for long term 
EP> stability and visibility on the Internet.
EP> Simultaneously I wonder how the French example could help 
EP> into gTLD global planet situation.
EP> No doubt that a Registrar incorporated in France may already
EP> provide an automatic bank payment to its Registrants, therefore 
EP> grant de facto a "long term option" to its stable customers.
EP> There is certainly some marketing efforts to be made.

EP> Elisabeth Porteneuve

EP> --
EP> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
EP> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
EP> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
EP> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html