Re: [ga] RE: [centr-ga] Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

In this case, I agree with Chuck.  There are always legitimate exceptions 
that occur.  Personally, I have had to "fight" with companies who failed 
to either post a transaction in a timely manner after receving a check or 
a payment has been "lost" either in the mail or within the corporation or 
a check has arrived three weeks after being mailed in the neighboring 
state or even within the state.  

There are many reasons why having allowance for exceptions is reasonable 
and necessary.  In addition, John Berryhill's statement that the contract 
for the domain is the overriding application is true.  However, in the 
case of litigation or other circumstances where an exceptional situation 
arises, that contract should be held as extended until it is resolved, 
thereby extending the terms of registration.  Once resolved, the 
individual who is either granted the domain or retention of the domain 
should have to pay whatever registration fees have accrued in the meantime 
(without having to use the RGP).

As for Dr. Lisse's contention that a destroyed entity would have no need 
for DNS, I would like to point out that this crass attitude toward an 
entity or individual whose primary source of business or home due to 
disaster will never recover or need the use of the domain is ludicrous.  
To deny an entity some leeway after such a disaster (tornado, terrorist 
action, storm, flood...) while attempting to put together his life and 
livelihood... well, I hope it never happens to him.  If it should, perhaps 
the cold, hard stance he has taken should be applied to him first.  After 
all, life is cruel, and all things are just black or white with no gray 
area, right?

The scenarios suggested by Mr. Touton are not exactly unusual.  I agree 
that the adjustments to language would be fairly minor and would not take 
the teeth out of the report.

Leah


On 13 Apr 2003 at 9:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I have a quite different view of ICANN's input on this policy than Dr.
> Lisse.  First of all, I don't think the input should be viewed as requiring
> major changes to the TF recommendations, but rather simply refining those
> recommendations to make them better. In my four years of experience
> directly involved at the registrar level and over three years experience at
> the registry level, I have seen actual examples of just about all of the
> hypothetical cases cited.  The will always be what we call "corner" cases
> that need to be handled on an exception basis and it is my opinion that the
> input from ICANN appears to be intended to deal with those. If reasonable
> and limited flexibility is not build into the policy to deal with such
> situations, then registrars will be forced into very awkward situations
> where they will incur problems involving excessive cost, possible
> litigation and may even be required to take actions that are inconsistent
> with good customer service.
> 
> I personally believe that relatively minor changes can be made to the TF
> recommendations to create limited flexibility in the Delete policy
> recommendations while still accomplishing the major objectives of the TF
> and the community.  Both registrants and providers will benefit from this.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> 



--
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