RE: [nc-deletes] Draft report

[Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>]

>Jordyn,
>
>Excellent draft. I have only a few comments/suggestions.
>
>ISSUE #1, first paragraph, delete the third sentence. The same thing 
>can be accomplished by provided a grace period during which the name 
>is not auto-renewed but is not immediately deleted unless an 
>explicit delete command is issued by the sponsoring registrar. In 
>fact, this is currently being considered by VeriSign.
>
>ISSUE #1, second paragraph, we may want to provide something 
>concrete from registrars or registries to back up the statistic in 
>the last sentence.
>
>ISSUE #1, last paragraph, I recommend that we add "before the end of 
>the grace period" for clarification.
>
>ISSUE #2, last paragraph, I recommend that we either define the 
>documentation or request an extension to address it. However, I have 
>been involved on the WHOIS TF Report Implementation Committee and it 
>appears that there is a move toward defining this in that report. We 
>should discuss that.
>

Tim, Hi.

What happens if we define differently from the WHOIS TF?

Did the WHOIS TF agree to our being responsible as:

    2. The scope of the Deletes Task Force is to determine what happens to a
domain name once it has been deleted for reasons relating to the
domains' Whois data.

Thanks,

Adam




>ISSUE #3, fourth paragraph, it should be noted that VeriSign's 
>approval for WLS included a provision that they cannot implement WLS 
>no sooner than six months following the implementation of the 
>Redemption Grace Period. So we may want to reword this so it doesn't 
>sound as though VeriSign is procrastinating on the WLS. It might 
>also be interesting, but not necessary, to speak with VeriSign about 
>it and determine if they are still determined to move forward with 
>the WLS. Or that might be best kept for the further analysis we are 
>recommending on this issue.
>
>Tim
>
>------------------------------------------------------------

--