[ga] GA summary 2002-07
This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)
discussions and news during the 7th (and the beginning of the 8th)
week of 2002. GA list archives are available online at
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.
"I have made this letter longer than usual
because I lack the time to make it shorter."
-- Blaise Pascal
There were no ongoing General Assembly votes during the time
Call for Sponsors
Names Council chairman Philip Shepard published a call for sponsors
for the webcasting of DNSO meetings in Ghana.
(i) Lending of Registry Access. Alexander Svensson forwarded an
advisory from ICANN on inappropriate lending of registry access.
This advisory elaborates on some obligations registrars have under
the agreement. The advisory points out that "at least one registrar
access-lending scheme currently in operation raises significant
issues under these provisions of the RAA."
(ii) Read-only access to the names council list. Danny Younger
asked what happened about Alexander's January 8 request for
read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list. In a reply, the
DNSO secretariat pointed out that such access "is already done
through a transparent access to archives". In a follow-up,
Alexander pointed out that his request was about e-mail access,
_not_ web access.
(iii) Whois task force. Danny Younger asked for public access to
the raw survey data.
(iv) Redemption grace period. Ross Rader posted a link to a
discussion paper from ICANN, on "Redemption Grace Periods for
Deleted Names." In that paper, a solution for the problem of
unintentional domain registration deletions is suggested: Any
"delete" of a domain name results in a 30-day grace period, during
which the domain name will be in registry-hold mode and removed from
the zone file, yielding the domain unresolvable, so registrants
notice that they have a problem. During that grace period,
"registrants could redeem their registrations through registrars."
William Walsh replied that "it should be stated that the registrar
can only redeem the registration for the original registrant."
Harold Whiting suggested that there should be uniformity with
respect to the current registrar-dependent "grace period": "If all
registrars are mandated to follow the same procedure during the 45
day window and delete names uniformly, we solve not only the
'mistakes' but also the hoarding issue." According to him, the
proposal adds "another layer of opportunity to manipulate the
Abel Wisman elaborates on the point that redemptions would lead to
registrants paying "renewal fees, plus a service charge, to the
registry operator." He sees a connection to the WLS proposal, which
would create an additional demand for such a redemption grace
period. William Walsh followed up on this message to suggest that
the service charge be removed from the proposal.
Genie Livingston points out that, in Verisign's answers to questions
about WLS (see below), there is indeed a pointer to the redemption
grace proposal: According to their Q&A document, Verisign had
suggested a 15-day registry hold period. "In the revised WLS
proposal, this provision was removed because ICANN is going to take
the lead in the process that hopefully will lead to such a
procedure." If ICANN process on this takes longer than
implementation of WLS, Verisign "would be willing to consider
implementing an interim procedure to provide for this need."
Don Brown says that he is in favor of the redemption grace period
document, with some modifications: The suggested grace period
"should be a 'minimum' period for the domain name to be on-hold";
the grace period should be longer when considering the effect of DNS
cache expiration; the domain should be on hold the day following
expiration; on-hold status should be reflected in whois information;
the grace period should not be conditioned upon payment of a fee to
Verisign registry by registrars; pricing for the service fee is to
be based on Verisign's cost; only the original registrant should be
permitted to redeem a domain; there should be a policy to prevent
hoarding; there should be a fine or other monetary penalty for
Marc Schneiders pointed out that some registrars he has checked have
an "auto-renew" option, which, he says, fully takes care of the
problem discussed in the ICANN document. He also asks for facts and
figures to back up the "anecdotal evidence" which "indicates that a
significant portion of the demand for registration of deleted
domains involves domains that the former registrant did not intend
to have deleted." (Quote from the ICANN document.)
Alexander Svensson points out that "e.g., register.com's service
called SafeRenew is simply an attempt to charge the credit card the
renewal fee" - an attempt which would of course be subject to the
possibility of failure. Alexander also quotes a message from Dave
Crocker to the ncdnhc-discuss list where Dave estimates the core
costs for domain registration to be $0.5 - $2. As Alexander says,
"the late renewal fee should definitely be less." Also, "the only
ones negatively affected are companies and individuals trying to
make a business out of the current situation where at least some
domains are deleted without the owner realizing it."
Elisabeth Porteneuve suggests that we learn from other than domain
name services. As an example, she quotes public services in France,
where suppliers are allowed to charge subscribers' bank account
periodically. (BTW, it works similarly in Germany.) Elisabeth
suggests that "a 'long term option' based on a kind of automatic
periodical payment could be added to registrant's choice."
(v) Verisign responses to questions received regarding the revised
WLS proposal. Verisign posted their response to the revised WLS
proposal as a 25-page PDF document.
In follow-up messages, Harold Whiting and William Walsh both agree
that the paper "is an excellent exercise in answering by not
answering." (William's wording.)
Genie Livingstone points out that the WLS proposal does not bring
any solution to the problem of deleted domain hoarding at
registrars. Unless this is resolved first, Genie finds WLS
unacceptable "in any shape or form."
Finally, Chuck Gomes announced that, responding to a request by the
registrars' constituency, Verisign is extending the deadline for
comments on the proposal to 7 March 2002.
(vi) Structure; At Large Membership. Danny Younger quoted the idea
"to involve ISPs in support of the At-Large membership," and
elaborates on some details of it.
Danny also pointed out that Philip Sheppard has published v6 of the
structure task force report. Danny considers that report "garbage."
In the subsequent discussion, Chuck Gomes of Verisign writes:
"Regardless of whether you like Danny's choice of words or not, it
appears to me that what he is saying is probably quite accurate, at
least with regard to the fact the report is primarily one prepared
by Philip. I know for a fact that the gTLD Registry Constituency
submitted fairly significant comments to the TF only to be largely
In a different message, Danny points out that he believes that the
task force's chair (Philip) demonstrates business constituency bias,
and asks for Philip to be replaced.
On the other hand, Philip claims that the current draft reflects
input from all constituencies.
To this, Chuck objects that "it certainly does not contain input
provided by the gTLD registry constituency."
(vii) A somewhat different approach to ICANN structure. A message
from ICANN director Andy Müller-Maguhn made it to the GA list
through several forwarding layers. According to Andy, Joe Sims was
in Brussels today for some closed door meeting with the European
Commission, where he presented plans for a complete restructuring of
the ICANN board, without an at large participation, and with "parts
of the DNSO." Apparently, Andy was not able to get hold of any
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html