DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [nc-deletes] Impact


Points well taken.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the RAA is not currently enforceable
because it is ambiguous, or not defined at all. The work of this Task Force
and the others will hopefully result in policy that is, which is an
important first step.

But you're right, there still needs to be an enforcement mechanism in place
and I agree that we should address that to some degree.

The problem with involving the registry with some of our recommendations is
that they are unaware of what's really happening unless the registrars
informs them, or the registrant complains to them directly. I'm not sure
the latter is a good idea.

Perhaps a good place to start looking at this is with the parts of
Transfers TF and the Whois TF reports concerning enforcement.


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] Impact
   From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>
   Date: Sun, January 26, 2003 11:27 pm
   To: <tim@godaddy.com>, <nc-deletes@dnso.org>

   > "If a domain name is not explicitly renewed by the registrant, the
   > must issue a delete request for that name no later than 45-days
   > after the initial registration period agreed to by the registrant.

   ..or else what happens?   The registry automatically generates the
   delete request?  Someone complains to Dan Halloran about it?

   One of the dilemmas of the WHOIS task force is that they have been put
   into the position of defending the 15 day period, regardless of the
   fact that the 15 day period on inaccurate whois data has always been a
   condition of the registrar accreditation agreement.  The overarching
   problem of the registrar accreditation agreement is that it prescribes
   a number of things that registrars are supposed to do, but provides no
   finer-grained enforcement mechanism other than the prospect of
   de-accreditation.  Hence if ICANN's counsel, in response to
   sufficiently well-heeled complaints, sends a letter to Verisign about
   a handful of names, then Verisign responds in 15 days. Accordingly,
   the WHOIS task force has defined a set of escalating "fines" that can
   be assessed for non-compliance.  Now, that may not be the best answer
   to the question of "what makes these apparently 'self-enforcing'
   contract mechanisms work, and nobody in their right mind expects
   registrars to agree under any circumstances to anything that might
   result in fines (or a withhold of their registry credits), but the
   problem of "what happens when what is supposed to happen doesn't
   happen?" is a question that always needs an answer when one is
   drafting contract terms.  And that is the exercise here.

   Failing to define action that will occur in the event of breach
   results in contract terms that can be ignored, to the extent that the
   only approach to the contract is an all-or-nothing proposition.
   Expecting that merely writing terms into a contract means that the
   terms will be followed is just wishful thinking.  For that matter, one
   need not incorporate them into the contract at all.

   Would it be useful to define a registry action to be taken in response
   to a failure of a registrar to timely submit a delete request?

   > Or some similar to that. By trying to stay in line with the WHOIS TF
   > work
   > can minimize the impact and maximize acceptance of our
   > recommendations.

   Yes, it is their job to define what is "accurate" whois data.

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