DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-deletes] Initial Thoughts on Deletes (Business)

Task Force Members,

   Before getting to the substance, I should make a comment about process.
Following our first telephone conference, I contacted the members of the
Business Constituency, apprised them of the issues under discussion within
this task force, and solicited feedback from the members. The overwhelming
sentiment of BC constituency members was that the timelines under which this
task force is attempting to work are too short. Because this task force was
chartered prior to the Board's adoption of new bylaws in Shanghai and
because we do not yet have ICANN Staff support for our work, the BC members
believe that we should act under the old DNSO procedures and allow this
group additional time. I understand that the BC members of the Names Council
will raise this issue at the Council's next meeting.

   On the task force's work itself, BC members want additional information
about certain aspects of the deletes issue, as well as additional time for
intra-constituency discussion, before reaching a final position. In the
interests of guiding the task force, however, and responding to the present
deadline, I can pass along the following comments. This is not a formal BC
position paper, only comments from individual members (including myself). I
think these are indicative, however, of the concerns of business registrants
generally, and I hope that they will provide enough direction for our group
to move forward.


  1. A name that a registrant fails to renew always should be deleted at the
end of the relevant grace period. (Issue 1)

  2. No registrar should be allowed to use the period of time after one of
its registrants has declined to renew a domain name to either exclusively
offer that name for re-sale or transfer it to a new registrant. Names that
are not renewed should be deleted and made available for registration on an
equal basis by all registrars and their customers. (Issue 1)

  3. The deletion grace period should be applicable to names deleted
following a failure to provide accurate WHOIS data. (Issue 2)

  4. For registrations reclaimed during the grace period by a registrant
that previously had failed to provide accurate WHOIS data, the registrar of
record should take affirmative steps to verify that the data submitted is
indeed accurate. (Issue 2)

  5. BC members generally favor a uniform delete and reallocation process
across all gTLDs, but the precise deletion and reallocation process should
be the subject of further discussion. It may be premature at this time to
recommend any specific reallocation procedure. BC members are interested in
following the implementation of the Verisign WLS before recommending that
something similar to that be adopted across all registries. (Issue 3)

  6. BC members generally understand Issue 4 to be a concern of registrars
and registries with no impact on registrants. We look forward to reading the
comments of those constituencies that are impacted and will reserve further
comment in the event an issue affecting business and commercial domain name
registrants arises. (Issue 4)

                              * * * * *

I'll be happy to address any questions on our next conference call.

    Bret Fausett



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>