Re: [nc-deletes] Newest draft

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

On the latest draft.

Generally.  Could someone come up with a time line showing what we're 
recommending? I remain slightly confused by what happens at what 
point, I think it would be helpful for people (me!) if this could be 
visualized.

V. picky editorial: I think there needs to be more consistency in use 
of caps in Task (task) Force (force.)

1.4.  I'm confused by the use of the word "alternations".

2.2.  second paragraph.  Can we change "may be" to "is", in "15 day 
period may be inadequate" (to "15 day period is inadequate".)

2.2.2. "In most respects, a name deleted for reasons relating to 
inaccuracy of Whois data is treated identically to a name deleted for 
any other reason."  As we are suggesting this as a change in policy, 
perhaps we should explain in a sentence following what this means in 
practice (we say the 45 day period should apply.)

3.1.4 and 3.1.5
Wondering about "Registrars must provide"  Whether "must" might be 
replaced by "should". With a strong request that this be adopted as a 
best practises process by accredited registrars (with a  review of 
adoption after 1 year?)

While "registrars must provide" is exactly what the NCC wants, and I 
hope will help educate registrants so we see fewer problems over 
deletes, I am not sure it's the Names Council's/ICANN's job to tell a 
business how to write a letter, etc.

3.2.
And, I'm a little confused by parts of this.

What is meant by "3.2.1 In the event that a domain the subject of a 
UDRP dispute is likely to expire during the course of the dispute" ?

Is it that the dispute resolution provider checks the expiry date of 
the name, sees it is likely to expire during the dispute, so begins 
the process described in 3.2.2 onward? Or, does she check the date, 
sees it's likely to expire, asks the registrant if they intend to 
renew, and only begins the process described in 3.2.2., etc. if the 
registrant indicates they will let the name expire?  Seems to me the 
registrant should be given first option of paying for the name, not 
the complainant.  (Hope I'm not being dense.)

   - - - -

Impact statement.

The impact statement for Registrants in the current draft covers just 
about everything and I would be happy for that to go forward as 
representing the NCC (with thanks to Bret.)

But following is my take on the impact on the NCC.

ISSUE 1, impact on Non-Commercial Registrants

We expect uniform deletion practises, and better information about 
those practises, will help registrants better understand the domain 
name registration process and consequently reduce confusion that has 
too often resulted in the loss of domain names.


ISSUE 2,
The process very adequately addresses the problem of inaccurate WHOIS 
data that is provided for the purpose of fraud or deception. However, 
it is well known that some non commercial registrants have provided 
"inaccurate" WHOIS data as a means of privacy protection. Some 
individuals and organizations have genuine reasons for not placing 
their actual contact information in a publicly accessible database. 
If the registrar is unable to contact such registrants and their name 
is deleted, the Redemption Grace Period will give them time in which 
they may state their case for return of the name. In this regard, the 
recommendation is a significant improvement on the current situation. 
However, such problems will continue for as long as Whois privacy 
issues are not addressed.

ISSUE 3. No impact

ISSUE 4. No impact



Thanks,

Adam

--